(I saw the thread from 2008; new administration, different players on the web ... this topic should be brought up to date.)
Possible questions for you:: Do you think the internet has a liberal bias? Why? What implications does this have for our future? (Unnecessary, but I'll include it: Are TL users generally liberal?)
1. Please don't go Aegrean and mind fuck us all.
2. Say something insightful.
I'm HOPING someone who is conservative makes a stand here and everyone is mature about it. I'm also hoping that this can pass as a thread and not necessarily a blog. Apologize in advance if I'm mistaken... it's been awhile.
Edit: Should not have mentioned YouTube. That is a playpen for screaming kids; I'm well aware of this and was trying to provide an example everyone is familiar with. Secondly, I'm a moderate from the United States trying to get some different viewpoints on the matter.
Average IQ of youtube comments posters is barely above my grandmother's APM.
Edit : Sorry for making such a short reply, you probably expected a more developed answer, but I think there is nothing else to say. I prefer to have politics debates with my colleagues / friends than with some random fucktards on youtube.
But it's a great idea to start the debate here since I TL community is smart and good at arguing.
The internet has a liberal bias because it is predominatly youthful. Young people, particularly now, are mostly socialist liberal with varying degrees of conservatism within that ideological tradition.
Implications? Not much. At least in the UK popular poltical parties are non-radical liberals with either a liberal or a socialist influence. In the US I would assume that it means the republical party will either die (but afaik the US system doesnt allow 3rd parties), or move way to the centre.
Are TL users generall liberal? Again, TL users are young so probably. Also TL users are mostly international. The USA is the only place in the world where economic liberalism has been sold to the lower classes
On July 05 2010 19:19 ActualSteve wrote: every time I watch a YouTube video about politics, I read the comments.
There's your problem
No, i think hes right. I think the reason for this is mainly demographics. Young people dominate the internet and forums and young people tend to be more liberal.
If you know crap about politics, liberal arguments just sound better than conservative arguments.
Also the word "conservative" itself means resistant to change and is associated with rich old geezers, who are reluctant to new ideas.
Why are you looking for biases everywhere, the answer is simple, the reason for an american to notice there is more liberal comments on the net than in the media is, that the rest of the world is on the net, plus internet is a meeting point for fringe opinions, if you want to call a american liberal a fringe opinion. I am from sweden, and I think that there are more right-wing comments on the internet for the reason that my countrys media-climate is quite leftish compared to the rest of the world.
Plus everything can be a bias from every stand-point and in every way for anybody, so I wouldnt be so quick to proclaim something a bias because its not close to your personal opinions. But maybe you are totally sure that you have 100% the right opinion about everything.
Plus people who comments on youtube are mostly idiots.
Plus everything can be a bias from every stand-point and in every way for anybody, so I wouldnt be so quick to proclaim something a bias because its not close to your personal opinions. But maybe you are totally sure that you have 100% the right opinion about everything.
Plus people who comments on youtube is mostly idiots.
Noticing a general bias on the internet doesn't have anything to do with your own standpoint. Anybody can notice a political tendency or bias, no matter what their own political opinion or standpoint is.
Edit: I think the preelection Obama vs McCain thread on TL.net is a very good example. Over 50 pages there were two or three users trying to justify their conservative standpoint while getting totally stomped and ridiculed by the rest of TL.net.
Plus everything can be a bias from every stand-point and in every way for anybody, so I wouldnt be so quick to proclaim something a bias because its not close to your personal opinions. But maybe you are totally sure that you have 100% the right opinion about everything.
Plus people who comments on youtube is mostly idiots.
Noticing a general bias on the internet doesn't have anything to do with your own standpoint. Anybody can notice a political tendency or bias, no matter what their own political opinion or standpoint is.
Depending how you define bias?
Nothing is surely objective, so there are biases everywhere. And internet is a big place without an agenda, so to notice a general bias there you have to look really closely. Every opinion is represented on net.
Edit: My definition of bias is only seeing things from one side, or giving one side an unfair advantage-
If you have a very fringe opinion, everything, even objective thoughts will look biased to you. Just like creationists thinking that only teaching evolution in the science class is biased.
On July 05 2010 19:19 ActualSteve wrote: every time I watch a YouTube video about politics, I read the comments.
There's your problem
No, i think hes right. I think the reason for this is mainly demographics. Young people dominate the internet and forums and young people tend to be more liberal.
If you know crap about politics, liberal arguments just sound better than conservative arguments.
Also the word "conservative" itself means resistant to change and is associated with rich old geezers, who are reluctant to new ideas.
edit: Reach_UK already made my point
He is right in the sense that he is right-wing.
His observations on youtube however are all about perception. Opinions that contradict his are more memorable so in recollection there is a liberal bias to him. I personally am more politically left and observe the opposite.
Additionally the op is American which in general is more conservative than other western countries. Or maybe that is just my own perceptional bias talking.
On July 05 2010 19:19 ActualSteve wrote: (I saw the thread from 2008; new administration, different players on the web ... this topic should be brought up to date.)
Seems like every time I watch a YouTube video about politics, I read the comments. Almost every time I read the comments, I see the conservative standpoint in the minority. Almost every time said standpoint is stated, 10+ people with opposing viewpoints jump at the opportunity of ridiculing the right.
Possible questions for you:: Do you think the internet has a liberal bias? Why? What implications does this have for our future? (Unnecessary, but I'll include it: Are TL users generally liberal?)
1. Please don't go Aegrean and mind fuck us all.
2. Say something insightful.
I'm HOPING someone who is conservative makes a stand here and everyone is mature about it. I'm also hoping that this can pass as a thread and not necessarily a blog. Apologize in advance if I'm mistaken... it's been awhile.
Disclaimer: You're going to get about 2 paragraphs into this and think I'm a liberal just taking an opportunity to troll, but I assure you, I am not.
Short Answer: The internet artificially selects for a liberally biased population.
Long Answer:
1. We can safely assume that people who do not own computers are at the very least significantly less likely to be denizens of this hive of scum and villainy (HA HA, THE INTERNETS) than those people who do own computers.
2. Computers and the Internet are vaguely selective in that most of the reasons one would purchase one, appeal more strongly to those who are more intelligent. Video games are arguably "harder" to enjoy than, say TV is (let alone whatever it is your stereotypical rednecks are doing).
3. Thus, the Internet has already selected for a population that is skewed somewhat above the average as far as intelligence goes. Moreover, the majority of those people who are exceptions to this rule (most of the people who comment on Youtube, for instance) are likely to take the more common viewpoint among their peers, which on the internet is already being liberal.
Now, this appears to be me claiming that intelligence correlates positively with "liberal-ness" - and this is true, that is my belief, but only up to a point. To explain this, lets reverse the issue:
Liberal positions (using the modern understanding of the term) are, I think, generally characterized by a belief that the end result of conservative policies is unfair, or unjust. Marx rails against the exploitation of the proletariat, the Democrats seek openly to redistribute wealth, they seek to universalize healthcare coverage, and so forth. They are, in essence, trying to help other people.
This is, really, quite easy to support, on the face of it. Who doesn't want to help people? Who, really, is going to admit that they're perfectly happy with people dying from a curable illness because they cant afford treatment*?
I'm making an assumption here that with increasing intelligence comes increasing empathy, which is tenuous, to be sure - but certainly as intelligence increases the capacity we have for worrying about issues which are not of direct importance to our own wellbeing increases.
Now, lets look at the result of, say, arguments against universal healthcare. It is an unavoidable fact that if you oppose universalized healthcare you must accept that some people will die when they could, perhaps, have lived with a universal system. This immediately puts conservatives in a fairly sticky position as far as arguments go. It is quite difficult to reconcile this kind of end-result with a concern for society - which is essentially what politics is, an argument over how best to serve society.
It takes a great deal of intellectual fortitude to take a long, hard, unbiased look at the arguments for both sides, and moreover it takes an intellect that has passed through the phase of believing every death is a tragedy that should be prevented at all costs. Such an intellect is, I would argue, more likely to side with conservatives than not, but that particular argument has nothing to do with answering your question. People capable of this kind of cold, logical, and prolonged thinking about very inflammatory issues are few and far between.
tl;dr: Conservatives are over-represented at the extreme ends of intelligence distributions, while Liberals are over-represented in the middle areas. The internet artificially selects a distribution that is biased away from the lower end of that distribution, thus resulting in an artificially high Liberal-to-Conservative ratio.
*Well, I am.
Having written that, I could posit another 3 possibilities for the appearance or fact of a liberal bias on the internet, but I think this one is sufficiently likely to degenerate into flames.
Plus everything can be a bias from every stand-point and in every way for anybody, so I wouldnt be so quick to proclaim something a bias because its not close to your personal opinions. But maybe you are totally sure that you have 100% the right opinion about everything.
Plus people who comments on youtube is mostly idiots.
Noticing a general bias on the internet doesn't have anything to do with your own standpoint. Anybody can notice a political tendency or bias, no matter what their own political opinion or standpoint is.
Depending how you define bias?
Nothing is surely objective, so there are biases everywhere. And internet is a big place without an agenda, so to notice a general bias there you have to look really closely. Every opinion is represented on net.
Maybe i misinterpreted you. What i think the OP means with bias is the general tendency of political discussions on the internet being dominated by liberal standpoints. I also noticed this and think its definitely true and has nothing to do with my own or the OP's political standpoint. Of course ever opinion is represented on the net, but i can't think of one political discussion on any forum i ever read, that did not consist of a majority of people arguing for their more leftish standpoint.
And i don't think this is bad or anything, i just think its normal. Reach_UK already said it, its a demographic thing. Young people tend to favor liberal political standpoints. And this is a fact, i bet there are a million surveys about this.
The simple answer is that The Internet is predominately not from the United States and the US conservatives' positions are for the most part very alien to the rest of world.
The other reasons stated previously are most likely valid as well but I think the internationality of the Internet is the most apparent reason.
Plus everything can be a bias from every stand-point and in every way for anybody, so I wouldnt be so quick to proclaim something a bias because its not close to your personal opinions. But maybe you are totally sure that you have 100% the right opinion about everything.
Plus people who comments on youtube is mostly idiots.
Noticing a general bias on the internet doesn't have anything to do with your own standpoint. Anybody can notice a political tendency or bias, no matter what their own political opinion or standpoint is.
Depending how you define bias?
Nothing is surely objective, so there are biases everywhere. And internet is a big place without an agenda, so to notice a general bias there you have to look really closely. Every opinion is represented on net.
Maybe i misinterpreted you. What i think the OP means with bias is the general tendency of political discussions on the internet being dominated by liberal standpoints. I also noticed this and think its definitely true and has nothing to do with my own or the OP's political standpoint. Of course ever opinion is represented on the net, but i can't think of one political discussion on any forum i ever read, that did not consist of a majority of people arguing for their more leftish standpoint.
And i don't think this is bad or anything, i just think its normal. Reach_UK already said it, its a demographic thing. Young people tend to favor liberal political standpoints. And this is a fact, i bet there are a million surveys about this.
Left/Right isn't binary. Even if we do place all political standpoints on a one dimensional line there are still infinitely many points along that line. If you are far to the right on that line then the average opinion will look leftish to you. A non biased opinion would then be something at the middle of that line but how would you define the middle? The median of all individuals political thoughts? In which group? The middle of that line in the US would be far to the right of the middle in Europe.
I don't think I've ever read an intelligent youtube comment. Disregarding this fact, the same bias can be seen on most sites tl.net included. I think the reason is that most of the world (edit: with high rate of internet access availability) outside of U.S. don't share many values or ideologies with the american political right.
to be honest, to base an understanding of the denizens of the internet on youtube comments is like judging all of the food in the world on british cooking.
I wouldn't at all be suprised at this, basing anything on what people on youtube says isn't the best thing to begin with, but most of the rest of the world is just a alot less rightwing than America is. I mean atm the democrats in America are being singled out to be socialist madmen, yet they are still more rightwing than the most rightwing major party in my country.
On July 05 2010 20:23 Hynda wrote: I wouldn't at all be suprised at this, basing anything on what people on youtube says isn't the best thing to begin with, but most of the rest of the world is just a alot less rightwing than America is. I mean atm the democrats in America are being singled out to be socialist madmen, yet they are still more rightwing than the most rightwing major party in my country.
Yes, I guess so. I don't think that most .com web pages such as youtube are extraordinary liberal whereas the USA are known to me and many other germans as having an extraordinarily strong conservative party /right wing. The german CDU (Christlich Demokratische Union Deutschlands - Christian Democratic Union of Germany) is almost as liberal as the Democratic Party although, on the scale of parties, it's as right wing as the republicans (only known party that is further on the right side is the nazi party NPD and they don't get a namable part of votes anyways, e.g. they have no chance to get a seat in the bundestag. All they're good for is beeing scolded everywhere.)
However, in general the internet is certainly way more liberal than politics. That's just typical for the large rate of young people who usually are more liberal than older people such as almost all politicians.
Also, art is almost always left wing and are a huge part of what people discuss about. Maybe not paintings or theatre (the most likely most left wing form of arts there is) but at least music or movies.
On July 05 2010 19:19 ActualSteve wrote: (I saw the thread from 2008; new administration, different players on the web ... this topic should be brought up to date.)
Seems like every time I watch a YouTube video about politics, I read the comments. Almost every time I read the comments, I see the conservative standpoint in the minority. Almost every time said standpoint is stated, 10+ people with opposing viewpoints jump at the opportunity of ridiculing the right.
Possible questions for you:: Do you think the internet has a liberal bias? Why? What implications does this have for our future? (Unnecessary, but I'll include it: Are TL users generally liberal?)
1. Please don't go Aegrean and mind fuck us all.
2. Say something insightful.
I'm HOPING someone who is conservative makes a stand here and everyone is mature about it. I'm also hoping that this can pass as a thread and not necessarily a blog. Apologize in advance if I'm mistaken... it's been awhile.
tl;dr: Conservatives are over-represented at the extreme ends of intelligence distributions, while Liberals are over-represented in the middle areas. The internet artificially selects a distribution that is biased away from the lower end of that distribution, thus resulting in an artificially high Liberal-to-Conservative ratio. .
Its an opinion. The only studies I've seen have shown very small differences, and I'm not too sure about their validity.
If it came across as something other than an opinion, that was a mistake.
[edit] Not to mention I'm not even remotely convinced that the kind of intelligence I'm talking about is accurately measured by IQ, which is the only remotely good measure of intelligence we have.
On July 05 2010 20:55 kzn wrote: Its an opinion. The only studies I've seen have shown very small differences, and I'm not too sure about their validity.
If it came across as something other than an opinion, that was a mistake.
[edit] Not to mention I'm not even remotely convinced that the kind of intelligence I'm talking about is accurately measured by IQ, which is the only remotely good measure of intelligence we have.
I believe studies have shown a correlation between amount of higher education and political liberalism. It doesn't have anything to do with intelligence, but simply the fact that the longer you are in college, the greater percentage of your adult life you spend in a very liberal environment. If I remember correctly, there are notably more liberal PhD's than conservative PhD's (also because there's not much you can do with a PhD other than spend your life in academia). Environment is probably the primary influence on an individual's political tendencies.
On July 05 2010 20:55 kzn wrote: Its an opinion. The only studies I've seen have shown very small differences, and I'm not too sure about their validity.
If it came across as something other than an opinion, that was a mistake.
[edit] Not to mention I'm not even remotely convinced that the kind of intelligence I'm talking about is accurately measured by IQ, which is the only remotely good measure of intelligence we have.
Yeah attributing only intelligence to political views seems so simple and I wish it was that easy, there are just to many factors to take into account, from upbringing, social status, mental and physical health and so on, I wouldn't even be surprised the role intelligence takes on this is much less than we think.
And then there's the problem of kinds of intelligence that you ponted out but this thread isn't really about this.
On topic though, my experience on the internet has been the opposite, I actually feel it is mostly populated by conservative views.
I really dont understand the word Bias, becuase English is not my main language, But ill give it a shot.
I am guessing you want me to tell you if i think that there is a liberal "base" in the internet? That in the bottom, it is liberal?
I do believe that everyone has the right to almost everywhere on the planet , write their own feelings adn thoughts, But i do not think that you can write whatever you want on a forum, WITHOUT being critizsed. There is always someone that does not feel your way and that HAS to point it out..
On July 05 2010 21:10 whatever wrote:Yeah attributing only intelligence to political views seems so simple and I wish it was that easy, there are just to many factors to take into account, from upbringing, social status, mental and physical health and so on, I wouldn't even be surprised the role intelligence takes on this is much less than we think.
Well that part is motivated by my belief that, at the end of the day, political disagreements (and, indeed, disagreements of all kinds) can be divided into two distinct groups: differences that root from different opinions, and differences that root from flawed arguments or incomplete knowledge.
For instance, lets take Universal Healthcare. There are actually two distinct arguments going on with this issue, although most people don't seem to notice this. There's the answer to the question "should everyone have access to healthcare of X standard, regardless of ability to pay" - and this is essentially an opinion, as it turns on moral concerns and these cannot be argued to anything like a solid conclusion. This, as with most opinions, is almost certainly something that has way more to do with upbringing, social status, and so forth than intelligence.
But the other argument is how to go about providing such access, if you take it as given that it should be. This is an argument that, I think, has a single, clear, correct answer (and its not single-payer). Its an empirical question, which turns on economic facts and how people make decisions. I think most political disagreement, even between conservatives and liberals (rather than moderate liberals and "progressives", for instance) is actually disagreements of this kind, rather than the first, and this is why I posit a link to intelligence. Less intelligent people are (again, an opinion that I can't really support with data) more likely to take a position that "feels" right without evaluating it rigorously and completely, and thus more likely to end up with liberal positions - up to a point, at which point the intelligence has dropped to a point that evaluation of a position becomes extremely difficult on its own, and people revert to "DEY TUK OUR JOBS"
Plus everything can be a bias from every stand-point and in every way for anybody, so I wouldnt be so quick to proclaim something a bias because its not close to your personal opinions. But maybe you are totally sure that you have 100% the right opinion about everything.
Plus people who comments on youtube is mostly idiots.
Noticing a general bias on the internet doesn't have anything to do with your own standpoint. Anybody can notice a political tendency or bias, no matter what their own political opinion or standpoint is.
Depending how you define bias?
Nothing is surely objective, so there are biases everywhere. And internet is a big place without an agenda, so to notice a general bias there you have to look really closely. Every opinion is represented on net.
Edit: My definition of bias is only seeing things from one side, or giving one side an unfair advantage-
Is it objective that nothing is objective? Come on, man, Plato dealt with this kind of relativism more than 2000 years ago.
You can't actually deal with strong skeptic positions on objective reality. They're pretty silly positions, but as far as argumentation goes they're rock solid.
Maybe our Danish, Norwegian or Swedish members can confirm, but would you be able to convince anyone in northern Europe you are a liberal just because you accept evolution, don't go to church too often, think abortion should obviously be legal and have no issues with homosexuals? I'm guessing that would just be "normal" around those parts.
From an American perspective the internet definitely has a liberal bias, in that the average internet user is ultra-liberal when compared to the average American. I think this is so because information flow on the internet is very hard to control, as opposed to other forms of media, exposure to more diverse viewpoints is hard to avoid on the internet, creating a bubble of isolation from opposing viewpoints can be achieved more easily on tv channels (see Fox News) or newspapers. It could also be true that those actually interested in finding out the truth are more inclined to go to the internet to find it instead of believing what some "news organisation" is feeding them.
It is not my intent to insult anyone and I think there are some legitimate points to be made by conservatives but it seems to me that the more information you have, the more interested in the truth you are, the more you are aware of all the arguments, the more you are intelectually honest in debates.. in general the more liberal you are. The American right's disdain for academia is telling in this regard.
"Do you think the internet has a liberal bias? Why?"
I don't think that's the right way of putting it. The word bias as it's used in politics is almost meaningless, for it suggests that there's such a thing as a "neutral center." The way I would put it is that a certain ideology that can be broadly called "the left" is predominant.
Let me analyze the reasons for this from a somewhat different point of view than the posters above. Here's a couple:
1) The universal belief in progress, from the 19th century on, is more useful for leftist propaganda than for reactionary propaganda (I use the word "reactionary" in a value-neutral sense). The slogans and catchwords of anti-racism and of "social justice" speak to the contemporary man's deepest desires and presuppositions, and can be used to manipulate him to act in ways that have little to do with actual justice. Even "right-wing" propaganda must take into account that modern man believes in progress, in happiness, in perfectability of mankind, and so on. Thus the Right is always fighting an uphill battle.
2) The advancement of technology undercuts those who want to argue in favor of reducing the role of government. Many scientific and technical projects require the level of organization and funding that can only be provided by a strong central government. Also, because of growing technical complexity, maximum efficiency requires that vital government decisions are made by experts; hence the need for a growing bureaucracy and the continual expansion of the size and number of government agencies.
3) The horrors of the World Wars and the crime of the Holocaust have left an indelible imprint in the collective Western consciousness. The chief culprits of these disasters have been identified (in the view of most) as racial prejudce and nationalism. Thus nationalism and racial prejudce have been hastily replaced by their extreme opposites: an irrational belief in "diversity" and "tolerance." This has led, among other things, to a situation unprecedented in human history, where the Western countries are allowing immigration of tens of millions of persons from another civilization on a nonreciprocal basis. Although today both the "right-wing" and the "left-wing" parties pay obeisance to this myth, the Left is naturally more attuned to it and therefore benefits.
I'm making an assumption here that with increasing intelligence comes increasing empathy, which is tenuous, to be sure - but certainly as intelligence increases the capacity we have for worrying about issues which are not of direct importance to our own wellbeing increases.
I'm pretty sure there exists statistical evidence that this is true. IIRC Charles Murray has written on this in The Bell Curve or somewhere else.
On July 05 2010 21:21 Doctorasul wrote: Maybe our Danish, Norwegian or Swedish members can confirm, but would you be able to convince anyone in northern Europe you are a liberal just because you accept evolution, don't go to church too often, think abortion should obviously be legal and have no issues with homosexuals? I'm guessing that would just be "normal" around those parts.
This is very sensible. As a south american who follows US politics, I think the main problem is that the current Republican leadership is way out of touch with reality. I'm not saying all Republicans are bad- I thought Rudy Guiliani and John McCain were pretty good as far as politicians go (before they turned sharply to the right during the primaries and elections for the presidency), and Ron Paul (technically from the Republican party, even though he's a libertarian) is great. I know your average netizen's opinion on Glenn Beck is pretty bad, but from what little footage I've actually seen of him on YouTube, he doesn't sound terrible at all.
And then, you have Sarah Palin. Seriously? How can that fanatic have so much support? It blows my mind. For the 2008 US presidential elections, The Economist made an online poll- If the rest of the world could vote, who would they pick between Obama (Democrat, Blue) and McCain (Republican, Red)?
I could only find a screenshot of the application showing who they'd elect on each country, Red or Blue:
In most countries, the voting wasn't even close- Obama had an overwhelming majority, usually 70%+. The world hated G.W. Bush, and with good reason: He valued loyalty over competence, and his governments were terrible. What's worse, the current Republican leadership is of the same line; all politics, no content, overly religious and mistrusting of reason.
A large portion of the rest of the world would find the Christian branch of the Republican Party (which is their most visible face) simply ridiculous. As long as they stay that way, they'll simply stay out of touch with the rest of the world- giving the rest of the world (and the internet, I suppose) a 'liberal bias'.
The problem is probably less to do with the internet being 'liberal' and more to do with it being 'not conservative'. The other problem is the fact that it seems as though Americans are totally incapable of accepting that there are more ways to view the world than just through 'liberal' or 'conservative' eyes.
Ofcourse it doesn't help that republicans have quite a few policies that are on pretty morally shakey ground: - Gun control (extreme interpretation of the Second Amendment) - Abortion (pro life) - Gay Rights (no same sex marrages) - Immigration (deport those without a visa) - Health Care (based on economics, not on need)
I think that age is as significant a factor as internationality. As I'm a bit older now, I've seen a large majority of my friends go from being staunchly liberal in high school/college to quite conservative after they've been out in the world working for awhile.
Nice essay on intellect being correlated with liberal-ness, but I somewhat disagree. It's no secret that academicians (particularly social "scientists") are largely liberal, but people often use that correlation to make the conclusion that it's the "correct" viewpoint. Well it's no surprise that a bunch of bleeding-heart hippies who want to live in a utopian world are going to cherish socialist philosophies, but that doesn't mean that socialist philosophies are actually, in practice, going to help create a utopia. They just help create nanny states where as many people as possible mooch off those who actually generate wealth.
Edit: I think a fundamental difference here is that I do not believe in the perfectibility of mankind, at least certainly not in my great-grandchildren's lifetimes. If I did, perhaps I would believe it might be possible to create a perfectly egalitarian state
It's kind of funny that you would use Youtube as an example because when a "conservative" makes a comment there it is more often than not inflammatory gibberish about how Obama is a lizardman who wants to destroy the USA for the glory of Kenya.
On July 05 2010 21:53 Tyraz wrote:Ofcourse it doesn't help that republicans have quite a few policies that are on pretty morally shakey ground:
Hold on here. You may well be right that the arguments offered by republicans in support of the following issues are bad or shakey, but with the exception of same sex marriage, not a single issue you've named cannot be defended rigorously and completely to a solid conclusion shared with republicans.
I can do it if you want me to - although it will be an essay.
It is not my intent to insult anyone and I think there are some legitimate points to be made by conservatives but it seems to me that the more information you have, the more interested in the truth you are, the more you are aware of all the arguments, the more you are intelectually honest in debates.. in general the more liberal you are. The American right's disdain for academia is telling in this regard.
The academic system in general is pretty left-slanted, since teaching is a "liberal" discipline in itself - just like you'd probably find a lot more "conservatives" in upper management positions for big companies.
Also, as a student of economics, as far as my experience goes, the more people know about economics and the better they understand its systemic character, the more "conservative" their economic views are.
Anywho, let me just make it clear that as far as I go, I consider myself a classical liberal, which is pretty close to the american libertarianism, I guess, but not *quite* the same thing though. To me, the whole international political environment today feels like it's a revival of the 60s - the internet is full of modern-day hippies that protest against war, corporations, rich people and want weed legalized. Now, the issues themselves are some very good issues to think about and challenge, but it feels to me like the vast majority of people approach them in a very shallow manner, brand a lot of things as being "evil" and refuse to see that reality is rarely as black and white as they see it.
Makes me wonder if 2030 will be like the 80s and everyone will praise the values of free-market capitalism, low taxation and minimal state intervention.
On July 05 2010 22:05 Biochemist wrote:Nice essay on intellect being correlated with liberal-ness, but I somewhat disagree. It's no secret that academicians (particularly social "scientists" are largely liberal, but people often use that correlation to make the conclusion that it's the "correct" viewpoint. Well it's no surprise that a bunch of bleeding-heart hippies who want to live in a utopian world are going to cherish socialist philosophies, but that doesn't mean that socialist philosophies are actually, in practice, going to help create a utopia. They just help create nanny states where as many people as possible mooch off those who actually generate wealth.
That is almost precisely my point. I'm positing that as intelligence increases, people get better at fully thinking through a position, and become more empathetic, leading to a correlation between intelligence and "socialist" positions until intelligence reaches a threshold value where people follow "socialism" through to its logical conclusion and realize its hypocritical and self-destructive.
Its more a matter of threshold values than a true correlation, I suppose, but I do think my final claim, that conservatives are over-represented at the extremes of an intelligence distribution, is actually empirically correct.
On July 05 2010 22:12 exeprime wrote:Makes me wonder if 2030 will be like the 80s and everyone will praise the values of free-market capitalism, low taxation and minimal state intervention.
On July 05 2010 22:05 Biochemist wrote:Nice essay on intellect being correlated with liberal-ness, but I somewhat disagree. It's no secret that academicians (particularly social "scientists" are largely liberal, but people often use that correlation to make the conclusion that it's the "correct" viewpoint. Well it's no surprise that a bunch of bleeding-heart hippies who want to live in a utopian world are going to cherish socialist philosophies, but that doesn't mean that socialist philosophies are actually, in practice, going to help create a utopia. They just help create nanny states where as many people as possible mooch off those who actually generate wealth.
That is almost precisely my point. I'm positing that as intelligence increases, people get better at fully thinking through a position, and become more empathetic, leading to a correlation between intelligence and "socialist" positions until intelligence reaches a threshold value where people follow "socialism" through to its logical conclusion and realize its hypocritical and self-destructive.
Its more a matter of threshold values than a true correlation, I suppose, but I do think my final claim, that conservatives are over-represented at the extremes of an intelligence distribution, is actually empirically correct.
Ah, I only skimmed the first half of your essay. Very interesting idea.
On July 05 2010 19:19 ActualSteve wrote: (I saw the thread from 2008; new administration, different players on the web ... this topic should be brought up to date.)
Seems like every time I watch a YouTube video about politics, I read the comments. Almost every time I read the comments, I see the conservative standpoint in the minority. Almost every time said standpoint is stated, 10+ people with opposing viewpoints jump at the opportunity of ridiculing the right.
Possible questions for you:: Do you think the internet has a liberal bias? Why? What implications does this have for our future? (Unnecessary, but I'll include it: Are TL users generally liberal?)
1. Please don't go Aegrean and mind fuck us all.
2. Say something insightful.
I'm HOPING someone who is conservative makes a stand here and everyone is mature about it. I'm also hoping that this can pass as a thread and not necessarily a blog. Apologize in advance if I'm mistaken... it's been awhile.
The idea of being liberal, democratic or minority is so blurred these days you shouldn't put a descriptor on them. The 1950s nuclear american family title as either 'Liberal or Democratic' doesn't truly exist anymore (and its debatable whether it ever did) and really all you have is a blown out idea.
That being said why bother reading youtube.com comments, I have never learnt something insightful from them since anyone with any intelligence wont even look there.
On July 05 2010 21:53 Tyraz wrote:Ofcourse it doesn't help that republicans have quite a few policies that are on pretty morally shakey ground:
Hold on here. You may well be right that the arguments offered by republicans in support of the following issues are bad or shakey, but with the exception of same sex marriage, not a single issue you've named cannot be defended rigorously and completely to a solid conclusion shared with republicans.
I can do it if you want me to - although it will be an essay.
Oh, I agree. Although I would extend that the position on health care as well; need should always over rule ability to pay (this is the essence of a moral decision.. isn't it?).
As for immigration; you cannot simply force people out of their homes, jobs and way of life simply because a piece of paper says they are not citizens. A moral (and economically sensable) solution would be to at least give them an opportunity to prove their worth/patriotism and decide based on that. Put simply: just because you were born in a country which was founded when someone put a stick in the ground and wrote a declaration of independance doesn't mean you have the right to forcably remove someone from their way of life without giving them a chance to prove themselves.
Also, your disagrement is exactly the point: for each of those points, there are moral ways of going about them, but the current republican stance is not one of them.
Edit: Also, yes; I'd like to see that essay. Most of those points are morally unjustifiable (note that health care and 2nd amendment have degrees of extremity. That is important.)
I can already feel this thread becoming a showdown between the fief and Stalinist Russia so I will bow out before I am tempted to write a serious reply to something ridiculous.
On July 05 2010 22:05 Biochemist wrote: But that doesn't mean that socialist philosophies are actually, in practice, going to help create a utopia. They just help create nanny states where as many people as possible mooch off those who actually generate wealth.
Well then I guess it all boils down to having different views of human nature (I don't know if this is the right term, but I couldn't find a proper translation for the swedish word 'människosyn', some one help me out.) I might be naive but my belief is that people are in fact willing to work.
On July 05 2010 22:21 Tyraz wrote:Oh, I agree. Although I would extend that the position on health care as well; need should always over rule ability to pay (this is the essence of a moral decision.. isn't it?).
Well, yes, thats a moral question. However, I'm fairly certain there exist some Republicans who would be fine with universal healthcare in theory, but have major problems with Obamacare's implementation and general idea.
While I personally believe need should overrule ability to pay, at the end of the day someone has to pay for any given treatment. Any universalized healthcare system is in essence forcing a moral decision onto people. Whether this is in itself moral or not is a major question, but lets assume it is. I'm perfectly happy, for instance, with a country implementing universal healthcare because the majority of the country thinks that need should overrule ability to pay - but I'm not perfectly happy with, say, a single-payer system. There are much better ways of achieving universal coverage that don't involve shitting all over competitive markets and maintaining the worst part of the previous health system because old people are selfish.
As for immigration; you cannot simply force people out of their homes, jobs and way of life simply because a piece of paper says they are not citizens. A moral (and economically sensable) solution would be to at least give them an opportunity to prove their worth/patriotism and decide based on that.
Well, first I'm going to address your focus on morality. Morality is not decided - I'd be surprised if you could find a single country with more than a 60-40 split in favor of any of the three major categories of moral procedures, and it is pretty much an opinion. Personally, I reject the idea entirely. That said, a government is able to do whatever the fuck it wants, as long as it can actually coerce cooperation. The question is should they do it, and, morally, that can be answered in really only one of two ways - you can approach it from a perspective of absolute rights, or you can ask what is best for the country. The first certainly doesn't work to your benefit in this case because the Constitution establishes no rights for non-citizens, so unless we get an Amendment passed they don't have any right to be in the country precisely because they dont have the right paper. The second way isn't clear, but could deliver equally valid conclusions of "let the immigrants stay" and "get rid of them all" based on utilitarian concerns.
Also, your disagrement is exactly the point: for each of those points, there are moral ways of going about them, but the current republican stance is not one of them.
This will get us off topic rapidly, but I would argue better to be right for the wrong reasons than wrong for any reason.
On July 05 2010 22:05 Biochemist wrote: I think that age is as significant a factor as internationality. As I'm a bit older now, I've seen a large majority of my friends go from being staunchly liberal in high school/college to quite conservative after they've been out in the world working for awhile.
Nice essay on intellect being correlated with liberal-ness, but I somewhat disagree. It's no secret that academicians (particularly social "scientists") are largely liberal, but people often use that correlation to make the conclusion that it's the "correct" viewpoint. Well it's no surprise that a bunch of bleeding-heart hippies who want to live in a utopian world are going to cherish socialist philosophies, but that doesn't mean that socialist philosophies are actually, in practice, going to help create a utopia. They just help create nanny states where as many people as possible mooch off those who actually generate wealth.
Edit: I think a fundamental difference here is that I do not believe in the perfectibility of mankind, at least certainly not in my great-grandchildren's lifetimes. If I did, perhaps I would believe it might be possible to create a perfectly egalitarian state
To embellish on this, I was talking to a 50 year old Harvard Alumni a few months ago, adn he mentioned that when they were in college, about 90% were liberal/democrats. By the time they were his age, it was around a 50/50 ratio.
Since there is an obviously younger demographic online, this would obviously lead to a much higher liberal/conservative ratio, at least among the intellectual. It does not particularly mean that the republican party is dying, as I have heard in a couple quotes.
On July 05 2010 22:05 Biochemist wrote: But that doesn't mean that socialist philosophies are actually, in practice, going to help create a utopia. They just help create nanny states where as many people as possible mooch off those who actually generate wealth.
Well then I guess it all boils down to having different views of human nature (I don't know if this is the right term, but I couldn't find a proper translation for the swedish word 'människosyn', some one help me out.) I might be naive but my belief is that people are in fact willing to work.
Most people probably are willing to work, but a large fraction aren't, if given the chance. I know a few guys from the Iraq war who faked PTSD when they got out so they could get the benefits. There was nothing wrong with them, but to get disability they started living the life and acting the part; now they essentially do have PTSD but it's not because of the war. They're just self-created bums. There are a lot of people that, if given the opportunity to mooch off of others, have no problem doing so and asking for more.
On July 05 2010 21:53 Tyraz wrote:Ofcourse it doesn't help that republicans have quite a few policies that are on pretty morally shakey ground:
Hold on here. You may well be right that the arguments offered by republicans in support of the following issues are bad or shakey, but with the exception of same sex marriage, not a single issue you've named cannot be defended rigorously and completely to a solid conclusion shared with republicans.
I can do it if you want me to - although it will be an essay.
Oh, I agree. Although I would extend that the position on health care as well; need should always over rule ability to pay (this is the essence of a moral decision.. isn't it?).
As for immigration; you cannot simply force people out of their homes, jobs and way of life simply because a piece of paper says they are not citizens. A moral (and economically sensable) solution would be to at least give them an opportunity to prove their worth/patriotism and decide based on that. Put simply: just because you were born in a country which was founded when someone put a stick in the ground and wrote a declaration of independance doesn't mean you have the right to forcably remove someone from their way of life without giving them a chance to prove their worth.
Also, your disagrement is exactly the point: for each of those points, there are moral ways of going about them, but the current republican stance is not one of them.
Need should never rule over ability to sustain. If you cannot pay your house off, you LOSE it. If we cannot afford the increase in healthcare to such a extent in such a badly implanted way it's going to hurt hard and make the situation worse for everyone. The US CANNOT sustain the spending, it will destroy the country, and if healthcare follows now, it will destroy the system. To repeat, it really wasn't about universal healthcare, but the WAY IT WAS implanted.
Example would be the ability to feed. You have enough to feed everyone but won't have enough to sustain crop production next year if you do. It's not a morally good result either way but a hard path has to be chosen. This is the role of the government, and now I would love to have a morally good answer to everything sometimes, it's hard to come to that conclusions in the face of reality.
Oh no, that's not the republican position at all! It's not universal healthcare but the fact the way it's implanted would lead to a lesser system that doesn't offer a better care, but worse. It has nothing to do with the idea of giving everyone healthcare, but making sure they can have the best to offer.
Wait what?
You are saying that a non citizen of a country has MORE right to be there then a citizen? You are saying those who want to go to that country luck out because they didn't hop some fence? What happens to the rule of law? Wheres the morally fair argument for those who do it the right way? In any event actually the government does have that right, all governments do.
Point is they shouldn't even be there, they know the consequences of their actions (they already have the first impression of disregarding the law), and must live with it. World isn't fair, and it's certainly a hypocritical situation to say they have more right to live in a country when there has been immigrants trying for years (legal way). Being compassionate in this situation is being cold to others.
On July 05 2010 21:21 kzn wrote: He didn't deal with it very well.
You can't actually deal with strong skeptic positions on objective reality. They're pretty silly positions, but as far as argumentation goes they're rock solid.
Really? Which skeptical arguments and which of Plato's refutations?
On July 05 2010 22:05 Biochemist wrote: But that doesn't mean that socialist philosophies are actually, in practice, going to help create a utopia. They just help create nanny states where as many people as possible mooch off those who actually generate wealth.
Well then I guess it all boils down to having different views of human nature (I don't know if this is the right term, but I couldn't find a proper translation for the swedish word 'människosyn', some one help me out.) I might be naive but my belief is that people are in fact willing to work.
Most people probably are willing to work, but a large fraction aren't, if given the chance. I know a few guys from the Iraq war who faked PTSD when they got out so they could get the benefits. There was nothing wrong with them, but to get disability they started living the life and acting the part; now they essentially do have PTSD but it's not because of the war. They're just self-created bums. There are a lot of people that, if given the opportunity to mooch off of others, have no problem doing so and asking for more.
I supose a large factor might be differences between different societal settings having such effects on individuals. Socialism isn't perfect and might not be suited for all societies at this point but it (not pure socialism, but the third way) certainly can have a lot of benefits to society as a whole.
On July 05 2010 21:21 Doctorasul wrote: Maybe our Danish, Norwegian or Swedish members can confirm, but would you be able to convince anyone in northern Europe you are a liberal just because you accept evolution, don't go to church too often, think abortion should obviously be legal and have no issues with homosexuals? I'm guessing that would just be "normal" around those parts.
Yeah, those things are not even on the political radar. Our politics is almost solely based on the economic questions, on a scale from socialism to free market. Education correlates quite well with being slanted towards the free market model, aka they are right winged here.
I would call it realists vs idealists. The left economic views comes from the strive for utopia where everyone lives a happy life sharing with those who needs, while the right views comes from experiencing what the world actually is. Many young people who haven't been out working in the real world don't understand why trying too hard to reach the utopian ideal is more destructive than constructive. It got merits of course, so you need to find some happy medium which is why we have debates.
I study physics btw and everyone takes for granted that you are right winged there.
But on a question about liberal vs conservative I would say that just about everyone is liberal as long as you don't talk about economy, to me it is very alien that any country can seriously be mixing religion and politics like the US does. If you vote for a free market model you also vote against abortions, gay marriage, evolution etc. I think that this is the main reason why the US can be so right winged, they make politics be about things that don't really belong there.
I can only speak for my country, and here obviously we dont have the same standards for left and right you guys have.
Either way, I am the type of guy who wants weed, gay marriage, abortion legalized.
Make no mistake, the vast masses of people with little to no internet access who attend their church religiously will not only be against it, but think its all work of the devil!
The main reason theres so many liberals in the internet/college, is because theres so much conservatives everywhere else, and in this mass of conservative people, only 0.3% can actually make a decent argument regarding what they defend/believe, the other 99.7% are bandwagoners too ignorant to even consider stopping and thinking about what they defend blindly by tradition.
Therefore the internet, is the only reliable escape for the lonly liberal sitting alone in his house, college is not enough of a liberal envyroment.
Here in Brazil everyone is a hypocrite, even at college, people will speak out against drug legalization and abortion then go smoke a joint and fuck a bitch with no protection
In defending my points; this is all I'll say: With regard to 'who will pay for healthcare': New Zealand covers every man, woman and child in the country (regardless of if they are a citizen) for $3.65billion ($580USD per person) per year.
@angelicfolly: it's those kinds of arguments which are exactly why there is a 'liberal bias' on the internet. With regard to health care - Money is an economic concept. Need is a moral one. There are a variety of ways you could justify why economics should affect health care (scarcity of service etc), but economic sustainability is not one of them. With regard to immigration - nobody said non citizens have more rights than citizens. This is about giving people the opportunity to show worth (nobody said you couldn't deport them if they wern't 'worth' enough). There is no justifiable reason to the contray.
On July 05 2010 23:07 Tyraz wrote:New Zealand covers every man, woman and child in the country (regardless of if they are a citizen) for $3.65billion ($580USD per person) per year.
And what about the people who want better healthcare? Because I can guarantee you there are procedures that NZ's system wont cover, because they're "unnecessary" or "too expensive".
But that is a decision that should be up to the person who "needs" the service.
The problem with your argument from need, is that even if I grant that moral concepts outweigh others (which, personally, I don't), you can't quantify need. Healthcare is scarce by default, and the only vaguely sensible way of quantifying need is to ask how much someone is willing to pay for a service/product. This is precisely what happens in a non-universalized system.
On July 05 2010 23:07 Tyraz wrote: In defending my points; this is all I'll say: With regard to 'who will pay for healthcare': New Zealand covers every man, woman and child in the country (regardless of if they are a citizen) for $3.65billion ($580USD per person) per year.
@angelicfolly: it's those kinds of arguments which are exactly why there is a 'liberal bias' on the internet. With regard to health care - Money is an economic concept. Need is a moral one. There are a variety of ways you could justify why economics should affect health care (scarcity of service etc), but economic sustainability is not one of them. With regard to immigration - nobody said non citizens have more rights than citizens. This is about giving people the opportunity to show worth (nobody said you couldn't deport them if they wern't 'worth' enough). There is no justifiable reason to the contray.
How do they decides who's 'worth' it? When the government starts making decisions like that it only leads to bad things.
And what do you mean economic sustainability isn't important in health care? If you can help everyone for 10 years and then go broke and help no one than isn't that significant?
On July 05 2010 23:07 Tyraz wrote:New Zealand covers every man, woman and child in the country (regardless of if they are a citizen) for $3.65billion ($580USD per person) per year.
And what about the people who want better healthcare? Because I can guarantee you there are procedures that NZ's system wont cover, because they're "unnecessary" or "too expensive".
But that is a decision that should be up to the person who "needs" the service.
The problem with your argument from need, is that even if I grant that moral concepts outweigh others (which, personally, I don't), you can't quantify need. Healthcare is scarce by default, and the only vaguely sensible way of quantifying need is to ask how much someone is willing to pay for a service/product. This is precisely what happens in a non-universalized system.
You clearly didn't read the link... We have a private system that anyone can go to should they choose.
And I think these days you'll find that 'need' is a subjective term as well. For bacic 'needs' i.e. cardiac arrest and most diseases there is no scarcity. Most of our health care system is clogged by people who shouldn't be there. If there was a scarcity of, say, fatty foods (which would be government regulation.. which would be 'conservative' ) and a decent level of exercise, most wouldn't be there. While these people may 'need' medical care, the treatment they 'needed' they could do without burdening the health care system.
@Myles: With regard to the objection to 'worth': how exactly can you get any worse than it is now? Without being accessed they face deportation... if they are accessed the worse that can happen is they are deported. You clearly didn't think that through very well. With regard to 'not enough health care'/'who decides who gets it': this isn't some pipe dream. We actually have that health care system here. Everyone is covered. For free or a small fee. Nobody is turned away. Everyone is treated within 24 hours. By law.
On July 05 2010 21:21 Doctorasul wrote: Maybe our Danish, Norwegian or Swedish members can confirm, but would you be able to convince anyone in northern Europe you are a liberal just because you accept evolution, don't go to church too often, think abortion should obviously be legal and have no issues with homosexuals? I'm guessing that would just be "normal" around those parts.
Yeah, those things are not even on the political radar. Our politics is almost solely based on the economic questions, on a scale from socialism to free market. Education correlates quite well with being slanted towards the free market model, aka they are right winged here.
I would call it realists vs idealists. The left economic views comes from the strive for utopia where everyone lives a happy life sharing with those who needs, while the right views comes from experiencing what the world actually is. Many young people who haven't been out working in the real world don't understand why trying too hard to reach the utopian ideal is more destructive than constructive. It got merits of course, so you need to find some happy medium which is why we have debates.
I study physics btw and everyone takes for granted that you are right winged there.
But on a question about liberal vs conservative I would say that just about everyone is liberal as long as you don't talk about economy, to me it is very alien that any country can seriously be mixing religion and politics like the US does. If you vote for a free market model you also vote against abortions, gay marriage, evolution etc. I think that this is the main reason why the US can be so right winged, they make politics be about things that don't really belong there.
This whole post is so meaningless and filled with falsehoods.
"Many young people who haven't been out working in the real world don't understand why trying too hard to reach the utopian ideal is more destructive than constructive.", of course people have those phases, but leftwing political parties aren't at all based on that. Maybe more young people vote leftwing, but that has nothing to do with the merits.
"Our politics is almost solely based on the economic questions, on a scale from socialism to free market." , is also nonsensical, most people vote on cultural (or psychological, say, a hateful person might always vote for rightwing populism) issues, not economic.
"I would call it realists vs idealists. The left economic views comes from the strive for utopia where everyone lives a happy life sharing with those who needs, while the right views comes from experiencing what the world actually is.", this just says that (according to you) the current way economics and such are organized is more like rightwing thought, not leftwing thought. That has nothing to do with the merits, and I don't see how someone is an idealist for having a different view than the current status quo.
"If you vote for a free market model you also vote against abortions, gay marriage, evolution etc. I think that this is the main reason why the US can be so right winged, they make politics be about things that don't really belong there." , voting Republican has little to do voting with free market. In fact, free market is just a PR phrase that is virtually meaningless.
On July 05 2010 23:18 Tyraz wrote:You clearly didn't read the link... We have a private system that anyone can go to should they choose.
But they still have to pay taxes to cover a system they don't need or want.
Most of our health care system is clogged by people who shouldn't be there.
And who gave you the authority to make that claim? If need is subjective, you literally cannot make the claim that a heart transplant is any more important than minor cosmetic surgery.
I think the world has a liberal bias... The reason for this is that liberal policy tends to benefit the poor at the expense of the wealthy and there are a lot more poor people in this world than there are wealthy people.
On July 05 2010 23:24 JinMaikeul wrote: I think the world has a liberal bias... The reason for this is that liberal policy tends to benefit the poor at the expense of the wealthy and there are a lot more poor people in this world than there are wealthy people.
But "liberalism" is a phenomenon of the West, the wealthiest part of the world. It's more of a case of the rich guy feeling guilty about his wealth
On July 05 2010 23:24 JinMaikeul wrote: I think the world has a liberal bias... The reason for this is that liberal policy tends to benefit the poor at the expense of the wealthy and there are a lot more poor people in this world than there are wealthy people.
But "liberalism" is a phenomenon of the West, the wealthiest part of the world. It's more of a case of the rich guy feeling guilty about his wealth
Not that I disagree but it seems you could make the argument that this is more because liberalism requires a significant wealthy group to fund it.
Most of our health care system is clogged by people who shouldn't be there.
And who gave you the authority to make that claim? If need is subjective, you literally cannot make the claim that a heart transplant is any more important than minor cosmetic surgery.
Our taxes cover a base health care system because it is deemed as a basic need: like shelter, water and electricty. This has nothing to do with if people 'want' it or not. Also, you'll note that $580USD is far cheaper than any insurance policy you can possibly find in the US. So, if you'd prefer, you can think of this as 'mandatory base insurance, with a private option to take the express'.
With regard to 'authority to make that claim': while this may be philosophically subjective, the health department has a position on this. If a decision must be made (which it hasn't yet), the cost to human welbeing is compared. That is to say, the cost of not treating a disease may be death, while the cost of a head ache might be mearly irritation. This is an extreme example, but you get the idea (I hope...)
By the way - Scientific testing actually proved that reading YouTube comments generally made your IQ go down. Unless the comments are actually quality.
But the reason we see so many liberals -- I think this is a bit simplfied, but I'll do my best:
When I was on vacation in the state of Pennsylvania I noticed that the city folk (the ones who are most likely to go on the internet) in pretty much every major city around the world are liberal, while the rural folk (who barely have an internet connection, firsthand experience) are more simple, and more conservative. I bet if those people on the farms actually got a connection (but conservatives are resistant to change, so good luck) then we'd have more equal comment distribution.
On July 05 2010 23:34 Tyraz wrote:If a decision must be made (which it hasn't yet), the cost to human welbeing is compared.
The point is, it is an equally strong argument to claim that if a decision must be made, it should be made by the person whom it affects most - the patient.
On July 05 2010 23:24 JinMaikeul wrote: I think the world has a liberal bias... The reason for this is that liberal policy tends to benefit the poor at the expense of the wealthy and there are a lot more poor people in this world than there are wealthy people.
But "liberalism" is a phenomenon of the West, the wealthiest part of the world. It's more of a case of the rich guy feeling guilty about his wealth
Not that I disagree but it seems you could make the argument that this is more because liberalism requires a significant wealthy group to fund it.
Not sure what you mean. Material inequality (i.e., a situation where a segment of society can be considered "rich" compared to the rest by some standard) is the norm in most of the world and has been historically but "liberalism" (or socialism) has practically never been the norm. Of course, you could argue that the seeds of socialism are contained in the Bible, and that many traditional societies have been "socialistic." But material inequality is not sufficient for the development of socialist ideas.
On July 05 2010 23:07 Tyraz wrote: In defending my points; this is all I'll say: With regard to 'who will pay for healthcare': New Zealand covers every man, woman and child in the country (regardless of if they are a citizen) for $3.65billion ($580USD per person) per year.
@angelicfolly: it's those kinds of arguments which are exactly why there is a 'liberal bias' on the internet. With regard to health care - Money is an economic concept. Need is a moral one. There are a variety of ways you could justify why economics should affect health care (scarcity of service etc), but economic sustainability is not one of them. With regard to immigration - nobody said non citizens have more rights than citizens. This is about giving people the opportunity to show worth (nobody said you couldn't deport them if they wern't 'worth' enough). There is no justifiable reason to the contray.
Health care systems are depended on the country in which they are implanted, naturally a smaller country may very well have a better system for that very reason. Overall picture is a must here.
Then how do you get doctors? How do you afford the medications? How do you improve on current conditions?
What are you trying to say, about my arguments?
YOU HAVE to be able to sustain something to keep it around. You cannot spend more money then you bring in. You over provide and destroy the system NO ONE get's healthcare. That is one of the major points of being able to sustain such a system. What happens if us lets everyone have the best care aviable without regard to cost? Collapse is the crrect answer.
Actually you did. You stating a government has no right to force a Non-legal person (not a citizen), while a citizen has to follow law or suffer consequences. It's not about what you can do for the country it really isn't. You already broken one law (not to mention others that depend on a certain status), cut in line of others and cause a hiccup in the system because of what you cannot do.
It is justifiable when others are paying for you to stay, when LEGAL immigrants go through the system for years if not sooner, and come to find out it's ok to live here illegal. What type of message does a government send when it allows and rewards somebody for breaking the law? When does the government lose credibility when making laws then?
You can pull this morality (this is besides what I have stated already), sad tale of affairs but that doesn't deny the reality that decisions have consequences. Those who go to a country illegality do not have more right to the country then one coming their legally. Actually it lessons their position for breaking a law they should have broken in the first place. It can be sad, they could of had the "right" reasons, but they just don't get a free pass because of good intention.
On July 05 2010 19:19 ActualSteve wrote: every time I watch a YouTube video about politics, I read the comments.
There's your problem
No, i think hes right. I think the reason for this is mainly demographics. Young people dominate the internet and forums and young people tend to be more liberal.
If you know crap about politics, liberal arguments just sound better than conservative arguments.
Also the word "conservative" itself means resistant to change and is associated with rich old geezers, who are reluctant to new ideas.
edit: Reach_UK already made my point
I disagree with the idea that the word conservative is associated with rich old geezers who are resistant to change, and think that is a very ignorant idea of it. Conservatism to me means restriction of powers to government, limited taxation and personal liberty, while recognizing that it is the governments role to protect citizens, by upholding the law, and their rights rather than intervene in a arbitrary manner through socially based policies they deem beneficial for society. I think in the U.S that many politicians including George Bush have been poor representatives of conservatism, especially considering that they do not uphold many of the philiosophies, or policies typically held by conservatives, and actually act in away that could be considered socialistic; for this many politicians in the U.S republican party are reffered to as neo-cons. I do notice a liberal bias in todays internet, and I am not yet past 20, and associate my political views with that of tradinitional conservatism. In grade 7 my teacher told my class something, which I agree with very much, and that is that there is no such thing as a free lunch. By this he meant that nothing comes without a price. As I write this many prominent economists in the united states, and the rest of the world are predicting a market crash bigger than any in the last 300 years as a result of extreme government spending financed by debt in the U.S and europe. Look at what is happening to the euro as a result of the socialist policies that are bankrupting countries within the E.U.
On July 05 2010 23:19 Mothxal wrote: voting Republican has little to do voting with free market. In fact, free market is just a PR phrase that is virtually meaningless.
Free market is basically having no rules and no taxes, increasing taxes for things like health care takes you further away from having a free market economy. Of course in many ways having taxes for things like health care is wanted which is why most of the developed world does it that way, a totally free market is no more wanted than a communistic one. In the same way regulations to prevent foul play are also needed etc.
On July 05 2010 23:19 Mothxal wrote: this just says that (according to you) the current way economics and such are organized is more like rightwing thought, not leftwing thought. That has nothing to do with the merits, and I don't see how someone is an idealist for having a different view than the current status quo.
I didn't say that it is bad to be an idealist, nor that it is good to be a realist. What I mean by "realist" by the way are those who wants to make it better for most since you sacrifice much growth to get everyone with you while "idealist" are those who wants to make it better for everyone since they don't think that anyone should be left behind.
On July 05 2010 23:19 Mothxal wrote: is also nonsensical, most people vote on cultural (or psychological, say, a hateful person might always vote for rightwing populism) issues, not economic.
Why people vote and what the vote actually means are two different things. The discussions are almost solely about where the states money should come from and how it should be spent, and that is the main difference between the parties.
On July 05 2010 23:19 Mothxal wrote: of course people have those phases, but leftwing political parties aren't at all based on that. Maybe more young people vote leftwing, but that has nothing to do with the merits.
That was my opinion, your opinion might be different. Welcome to politics. Also trying too hard to reach any ideal is bad, which is why it is called "trying too hard", as such I wasn't wrong with my statement anyway. You might argue that you can't try to hard, but that is another issue.
On July 05 2010 23:39 HnR)hT wrote: Of course, you could argue that the seeds of socialism are contained in the Bible, and that many traditional societies have been "socialistic." But material inequality is not sufficient for the development of socialist ideas.
Yet the people who follow said Bible are among some of the most conservative in the world.
On July 05 2010 23:34 Tyraz wrote:If a decision must be made (which it hasn't yet), the cost to human welbeing is compared.
The point is, it is an equally strong argument to claim that if a decision must be made, it should be made by the person whom it affects most - the patient.
Incorrect. This will simply lead to a contradiction, as both people want to be helped.
Further, while the decision might be subjective, the method to do so is universal. It shows no bias towards anyone other than their medical condition.
And finally, the decision rests with the person most qualified to make it. In this case it is the doctor, as he knows more about both patients and their condition than anyone else.
@angelicfolly: Just because something is legal or illegal doesn't make it morally right or wrong. And just because someone has more money doesn't mean they need more urgent medical attention.
On July 05 2010 23:39 HnR)hT wrote: Of course, you could argue that the seeds of socialism are contained in the Bible, and that many traditional societies have been "socialistic." But material inequality is not sufficient for the development of socialist ideas.
Yet the people who follow said Bible are among some of the most conservative in the world.
That's a pretty ignorant view you've got there... Assuming that bible-thumping rednecks represent any significant amount of the global Christian community? Yeah... let's keep religion out of this.
On July 05 2010 23:45 [UoN]Sentinel wrote: I have an idea...
For the sake of the OP's argument
Poll: Political stance?
Liberal (12)
46%
None (8)
31%
Conservative (4)
15%
Centrist (2)
8%
26 total votes
Your vote: Political stance?
(Vote): Liberal (Vote): Conservative (Vote): Centrist (Vote): None
Does the term, "Centrist" even have any practical meaning?
On July 05 2010 23:39 HnR)hT wrote: Of course, you could argue that the seeds of socialism are contained in the Bible, and that many traditional societies have been "socialistic." But material inequality is not sufficient for the development of socialist ideas.
Yet the people who follow said Bible are among some of the most conservative in the world.
I don't understand the phrase "the most conservative in the world," since the meaning of conservatism depends on the society you are talking about. For example, in the Soviet Union during the Gorbachev era, hardcore Communists were called "conservative." If you mean they adhere to a particular ideology which we in the West call "conservatism," then as a matter of empicrical statement of fact I cannot agree...
On July 05 2010 23:39 HnR)hT wrote: Of course, you could argue that the seeds of socialism are contained in the Bible, and that many traditional societies have been "socialistic." But material inequality is not sufficient for the development of socialist ideas.
Yet the people who follow said Bible are among some of the most conservative in the world.
I don't understand the phrase "the most conservative in the world," since the meaning of conservatism depends on the society you are talking about. For example, in the Soviet Union during the Gorbachev era, hardcore Communists were called "conservative." If you mean they adhere to a particular ideology which we in the West call "conservatism," then as a matter of empicrical statement of fact I cannot agree...
Yes you're right. This thread isn't going to go anywhere since the OP made a mistake by suggesting that Liberal and Conservative views are directly opposed to each other. That simply isn't the case.
In the UK we have a coalition of Conservatives and Liberals working together in government. Furthermore, the "Liberal Party of Australia" claims to adhere to conservatism.
I'm pretty close to a centrist, though I'm sure I would be called liberal by conservatives and conservative by liberals. That is, I'm pro-choice, pro-gun rights, states' rights, equal rights, limited federal government, fiscal responsibility, against Iraq, for Afghanistan, against affirmative action(reverse racism), and completely against handouts. I can truthfully say I have views from all over the place.
@angelicfolly: Just because something is legal or illegal doesn't make it morally right or wrong. And just because someone has more money doesn't mean they need more urgent medical attention.
You are not getting this.
wouldn't the argument being that it is immoral to break laws? But moral to break unjust laws? What a thought to think about.
Actually because somebody has more money that be the very definition of being able to offered what they want.They have the money, and they can go where they want, saying somehow they are wrong because of that is morally wrong because you don't even know the circumstance behind having that money.
IT would be better offered that everyone has a means to get what they need in terms of medical care, that CAN WORK, not a idealist viewpoint.
Then again I was never arguing from the viewpoint, so I don't know why you tried to write that into what I was saying.
On July 05 2010 23:39 HnR)hT wrote: Of course, you could argue that the seeds of socialism are contained in the Bible, and that many traditional societies have been "socialistic." But material inequality is not sufficient for the development of socialist ideas.
Yet the people who follow said Bible are among some of the most conservative in the world.
I don't understand the phrase "the most conservative in the world," since the meaning of conservatism depends on the society you are talking about. For example, in the Soviet Union during the Gorbachev era, hardcore Communists were called "conservative." If you mean they adhere to a particular ideology which we in the West call "conservatism," then as a matter of empicrical statement of fact I cannot agree...
Yes you're right. This thread isn't going to go anywhere since the OP made a mistake by suggesting that Liberal and Conservative views are directly opposed to each other. That simply isn't the case.
In the UK we have a coalition of Conservatives and Liberals working together in government. Furthermore, the "Liberal Party of Australia" claims to adhere to conservatism.
It makes it even worse when you capitalize them like that, because liberal and Liberal, and conservative and Conservative are different things. Americans bastardized the terms first, and unfortunately it caught on so most people don't know what they're actually saying.
I'm convinced that 99% of the internet, TL included, doesn't know the difference.
On July 05 2010 23:19 Mothxal wrote: voting Republican has little to do voting with free market. In fact, free market is just a PR phrase that is virtually meaningless.
Free market is basically having no rules and no taxes, increasing taxes for things like health care takes you further away from having a free market economy. Of course in many ways having taxes for things like health care is wanted which is why most of the developed world does it that way, a totally free market is no more wanted than a communistic one. In the same way regulations to prevent foul play are also needed etc.
On July 05 2010 23:19 Mothxal wrote: this just says that (according to you) the current way economics and such are organized is more like rightwing thought, not leftwing thought. That has nothing to do with the merits, and I don't see how someone is an idealist for having a different view than the current status quo.
I didn't say that it is bad to be an idealist, nor that it is good to be a realist. What I mean by "realist" by the way are those who wants to make it better for most since you sacrifice much growth to get everyone with you while "idealist" are those who wants to make it better for everyone since they don't think that anyone should be left behind.
On July 05 2010 23:19 Mothxal wrote: is also nonsensical, most people vote on cultural (or psychological, say, a hateful person might always vote for rightwing populism) issues, not economic.
Why people vote and what the vote actually means are two different things. The discussions are almost solely about where the states money should come from and how it should be spent, and that is the main difference between the parties.
On July 05 2010 23:19 Mothxal wrote: of course people have those phases, but leftwing political parties aren't at all based on that. Maybe more young people vote leftwing, but that has nothing to do with the merits.
That was my opinion, your opinion might be different. Welcome to politics. Also trying too hard to reach any ideal is bad, which is why it is called "trying too hard", as such I wasn't wrong with my statement anyway. You might argue that you can't try to hard, but that is another issue.
Either way, basically everything you've written in this thread is incredibly unclear, since you seem to invent categories and trends and such as you type, and never properly define something. Case in point, free market. A market without rules and taxes doesn't exist, has never existed, nobody wants it (including actual rightwing policy prescriptions), and it won't work. If you use free market with that (inane) definition, you can't take it seriously. The term has mostly been used as rightwing propoganda, so you should be careful to simply adopt it in your line of thinking.
On July 05 2010 23:24 JinMaikeul wrote: I think the world has a liberal bias... The reason for this is that liberal policy tends to benefit the poor at the expense of the wealthy and there are a lot more poor people in this world than there are wealthy people.
Very interesting viewpoint. I have studied the works of people like Napoleon Hill who have studied hundreds of rich people. Not a single one of them came out of poverty by being given money. Wallace D. Wattles actually points out that charity creates more poverty and does absolutely no good in the long term. Instead, he suggests the poor should be taught how to accumulate wealth by studying rich people.
On July 05 2010 23:19 Mothxal wrote: voting Republican has little to do voting with free market. In fact, free market is just a PR phrase that is virtually meaningless.
Free market is basically having no rules and no taxes, increasing taxes for things like health care takes you further away from having a free market economy. Of course in many ways having taxes for things like health care is wanted which is why most of the developed world does it that way, a totally free market is no more wanted than a communistic one. In the same way regulations to prevent foul play are also needed etc.
On July 05 2010 23:19 Mothxal wrote: this just says that (according to you) the current way economics and such are organized is more like rightwing thought, not leftwing thought. That has nothing to do with the merits, and I don't see how someone is an idealist for having a different view than the current status quo.
I didn't say that it is bad to be an idealist, nor that it is good to be a realist. What I mean by "realist" by the way are those who wants to make it better for most since you sacrifice much growth to get everyone with you while "idealist" are those who wants to make it better for everyone since they don't think that anyone should be left behind.
On July 05 2010 23:19 Mothxal wrote: is also nonsensical, most people vote on cultural (or psychological, say, a hateful person might always vote for rightwing populism) issues, not economic.
Why people vote and what the vote actually means are two different things. The discussions are almost solely about where the states money should come from and how it should be spent, and that is the main difference between the parties.
On July 05 2010 23:19 Mothxal wrote: of course people have those phases, but leftwing political parties aren't at all based on that. Maybe more young people vote leftwing, but that has nothing to do with the merits.
That was my opinion, your opinion might be different. Welcome to politics. Also trying too hard to reach any ideal is bad, which is why it is called "trying too hard", as such I wasn't wrong with my statement anyway. You might argue that you can't try to hard, but that is another issue.
Either way, basically everything you've written in this thread is incredibly unclear, since you seem to invent categories and trends and such as you type, and never properly define something. Case in point, free market. A market without rules and taxes doesn't exist, has never existed, nobody wants it (including actual rightwing policy prescriptions), and it won't work. If you use free market with that (inane) definition, you can't take it seriously. The term has mostly been used as rightwing propoganda, so you should be careful to simply adopt it in your line of thinking.
Agree. Changing the term 'realist' is a problem too.
On July 05 2010 23:39 HnR)hT wrote: Of course, you could argue that the seeds of socialism are contained in the Bible, and that many traditional societies have been "socialistic." But material inequality is not sufficient for the development of socialist ideas.
Yet the people who follow said Bible are among some of the most conservative in the world.
I don't understand the phrase "the most conservative in the world," since the meaning of conservatism depends on the society you are talking about. For example, in the Soviet Union during the Gorbachev era, hardcore Communists were called "conservative." If you mean they adhere to a particular ideology which we in the West call "conservatism," then as a matter of empicrical statement of fact I cannot agree...
Yes you're right. This thread isn't going to go anywhere since the OP made a mistake by suggesting that Liberal and Conservative views are directly opposed to each other. That simply isn't the case.
In the UK we have a coalition of Conservatives and Liberals working together in government. Furthermore, the "Liberal Party of Australia" claims to adhere to conservatism.
It makes it even worse when you capitalize them like that, because liberal and Liberal, and conservative and Conservative are different things.
I'm convinced that 99% of the internet, TL included, doesn't know the difference, however.
When I look at US politics, its really weird, because theres only 2 sides, but the right goes out of their way to look like a bunch of stupid rednecks making politics with the bible, while the left goes out of their way to look like they are actually the middle of everything and a place everyone would like to be, except most people will see it for what it really is, a bunch of cowards making the politics of pleasing everyone and leaving no one happy.
On July 05 2010 23:39 HnR)hT wrote: Of course, you could argue that the seeds of socialism are contained in the Bible, and that many traditional societies have been "socialistic." But material inequality is not sufficient for the development of socialist ideas.
Yet the people who follow said Bible are among some of the most conservative in the world.
I don't understand the phrase "the most conservative in the world," since the meaning of conservatism depends on the society you are talking about. For example, in the Soviet Union during the Gorbachev era, hardcore Communists were called "conservative." If you mean they adhere to a particular ideology which we in the West call "conservatism," then as a matter of empicrical statement of fact I cannot agree...
Yes you're right. This thread isn't going to go anywhere since the OP made a mistake by suggesting that Liberal and Conservative views are directly opposed to each other. That simply isn't the case.
In the UK we have a coalition of Conservatives and Liberals working together in government. Furthermore, the "Liberal Party of Australia" claims to adhere to conservatism.
It makes it even worse when you capitalize them like that, because liberal and Liberal, and conservative and Conservative are different things.
I'm convinced that 99% of the internet, TL included, doesn't know the difference, however.
When I look at US politics, its really weird, because theres only 2 sides, but the right goes out of their way to look like a bunch of stupid rednecks making politics with the bible, while the left goes out of their way to look like they are actually the middle of everything and a place everyone would like to be, except most people will see it for what it really is, a bunch of cowards making the politics of pleasing everyone and leaving no one happy.
Politics is a lot more than about what people say. I wish more people realized it. The institutional forces are often much more important than anything else. Most things are much more of secular, power calculations than you'd realize from just watching the news.
Perhaps it's one of the side effects of politics being so interesting. The number of people willing to try to analyze it far outweigh the number of people who actually capable of analyzing it. The same usually doesn't happen for physics or economics (although watching the statistics "debates" on TL is pretty amusing.)
Wrote a big thing on immigration, but I decided this isn't the time or place for it. Let's stick to the topic...
On July 06 2010 00:11 tryummm wrote: Very interesting viewpoint. I have studied the works of people like Napoleon Hill who have studied hundreds of rich people. Not a single one of them came out of poverty by being given money. Wallace D. Wattles actually points out that charity creates more poverty and does absolutely no good in the long term. Instead, he suggests the poor should be taught how to accumulate wealth by studying rich people.
Where are you getting your information?
Personally, I completely agree with you. Charity does nothing to benefit the poor in the long term. I suppose my point was that lower income people perceive a benefit from liberal policies because in the short term, they do get perks such as tax breaks, affirmative action, etc. The masses generally do not think long term or even for the betterment of society. For the most part, the masses are worried about what their lives are going to be like when they wake up tomorrow and what their paycheck will look like. This is why politics is such a joke and real issues and solutions almost never get touched on the campaign trail.
Personally I feel like if people were able to make the connections between things like taxes and social services, you'd see a lot less die-hard liberals out there acting like they know so much about what would be good for society and what would work and a lot more people saying "I really don't have a fucking clue..."
On July 05 2010 23:39 HnR)hT wrote: Of course, you could argue that the seeds of socialism are contained in the Bible, and that many traditional societies have been "socialistic." But material inequality is not sufficient for the development of socialist ideas.
Yet the people who follow said Bible are among some of the most conservative in the world.
I don't understand the phrase "the most conservative in the world," since the meaning of conservatism depends on the society you are talking about. For example, in the Soviet Union during the Gorbachev era, hardcore Communists were called "conservative." If you mean they adhere to a particular ideology which we in the West call "conservatism," then as a matter of empicrical statement of fact I cannot agree...
Yes you're right. This thread isn't going to go anywhere since the OP made a mistake by suggesting that Liberal and Conservative views are directly opposed to each other. That simply isn't the case.
In the UK we have a coalition of Conservatives and Liberals working together in government. Furthermore, the "Liberal Party of Australia" claims to adhere to conservatism.
It makes it even worse when you capitalize them like that, because liberal and Liberal, and conservative and Conservative are different things.
I'm convinced that 99% of the internet, TL included, doesn't know the difference, however.
When I look at US politics, its really weird, because theres only 2 sides, but the right goes out of their way to look like a bunch of stupid rednecks making politics with the bible, while the left goes out of their way to look like they are actually the middle of everything and a place everyone would like to be, except most people will see it for what it really is, a bunch of cowards making the politics of pleasing everyone and leaving no one happy.
Politics is a lot more than about what people say. I wish more people realized it. The institutional forces are often much more important than anything else. Most things are much more of secular, power calculations than you'd realize from just watching the news.
What I find weird about US is that there isn't a true "liberal" party. Let me elaborate: On one side, Republican party advocates less intervention on economics, but supports war and tries to make laws against drugs, prostitution, homosexual unions and gambling. On the other hand, Democrats advocate for non-intervention on "moral issues" but would identify more with left wing in terms of economical intervention. All of the above in general terms, I understand there are exceptions.
In my opinion, as I like to consider myself, a true liberal advocates for both a free market with a small government that promotes competition on market failures, and a government that doesnt interfere with what people do with their lives, as long as they don't harm others.
What I don't get is what, at least in Canada/US, being pro-choice, pro-gay rights, relaxed drug laws, etc. have to do with believing in increased gov't spending. And vice versa.
I just don't get how "you have to pay for yourself if you are sick/injured/etc." got matched up with "but you're not allowed to do these things with your body". Shouldn't conservatives be pro-prostitution? pro-drug? pro-personal freedom that they spout so ferociously?
An how does belief in the free market, that one should be the best or at least strive to be, and that others should do the same, make one so opposed to scientific progress? [HnR)hT had a pretty neat point about this though]
How did a religion about a guy who told everyone to help the poor, sick, needy etc. become the face of the opposition to social programs?
I guess I'm just trying to figure out why the political spectrum seems to have its economic and social stances matched poorly, as far as I can tell.
On July 06 2010 00:10 Djzapz wrote: Smart people tend to lean towards the left =P
Look at the majority of the very smart people! Big claim I know but it's interesting to look into. It's surprising.
Didn't see any credible sources backing up your claims. Please give me the sources you used to derive those claims.
I don't have a source saying that, it would probably be a biased one if I did. (Not that I'm not biased, I encourage you to look into it though)
Look at the prominent scientists, engineers, doctors and businessmen - the conservative/liberal ratio plummets when you reach a high level of education. As an example, Louisiana is very red for instance - it's packed with people who hate "socialism" but they get the most government help to pull through.
By no means is my little research proof of anything but there's an obvious, apparent trend. On the other hand, a conservative person may not view intelligence the way I see it. I value science and education. Somehow it seems that many conservative people don't value science as much as they should and that's very sad. In fact the lack of interest for science is pretty much a conservative trademark in the US. Very big issue.
"Of course it's completely unrealistic and nigh impossible to uproot and deport the millions of illegal immigrants already in this country, but...."
Wait, why is it unrealistic? It's been done many, many times before, most famously (or infamously) by the German and the Russians during the war. Even Americans under Eisenhower could do it (search "operation wetback"). But now it is suddenly unrealistic?
What does the OP think is liberal? The US is probably the most Conservative 1st world nations, so the vast majority of responses from Europe will be what the US considers liberal. Add to that ~half of the US is liberal by the US's standards and you get why it seems conservatives are always in the minority online.
"That and reality has a well-known liberal bias." (Think that is the quote.)
On July 05 2010 23:39 HnR)hT wrote: Of course, you could argue that the seeds of socialism are contained in the Bible, and that many traditional societies have been "socialistic." But material inequality is not sufficient for the development of socialist ideas.
Yet the people who follow said Bible are among some of the most conservative in the world.
I don't understand the phrase "the most conservative in the world," since the meaning of conservatism depends on the society you are talking about. For example, in the Soviet Union during the Gorbachev era, hardcore Communists were called "conservative." If you mean they adhere to a particular ideology which we in the West call "conservatism," then as a matter of empicrical statement of fact I cannot agree...
Yes you're right. This thread isn't going to go anywhere since the OP made a mistake by suggesting that Liberal and Conservative views are directly opposed to each other. That simply isn't the case.
In the UK we have a coalition of Conservatives and Liberals working together in government. Furthermore, the "Liberal Party of Australia" claims to adhere to conservatism.
It makes it even worse when you capitalize them like that, because liberal and Liberal, and conservative and Conservative are different things.
I'm convinced that 99% of the internet, TL included, doesn't know the difference, however.
When I look at US politics, its really weird, because theres only 2 sides, but the right goes out of their way to look like a bunch of stupid rednecks making politics with the bible, while the left goes out of their way to look like they are actually the middle of everything and a place everyone would like to be, except most people will see it for what it really is, a bunch of cowards making the politics of pleasing everyone and leaving no one happy.
Politics is a lot more than about what people say. I wish more people realized it. The institutional forces are often much more important than anything else. Most things are much more of secular, power calculations than you'd realize from just watching the news.
What I find weird about US is that there isn't a true "liberal" party. Let me elaborate: On one side, Republican party advocates less intervention on economics, but supports war and tries to make laws against drugs, prostitution, homosexual unions and gambling. On the other hand, Democrats advocate for non-intervention on "moral issues" but would identify more with left wing in terms of economical intervention. All of the above in general terms, I understand there are exceptions.
In my opinion, as I like to consider myself, a true liberal advocates for both a free market with a small government that promotes competition on market failures, and a government that doesnt interfere with what people do with their lives, as long as they don't harm others.
I'm going out to eat soon, but you can't really separate "moral" issues from economic ones that easily. It's more about the way the certain policies work. I can go into it more when I get back.
I think the answer to your post is that for the vast majority of people, when someone offers you money, you take it. Neither R or D are exempt from that, and they probably never have been. They just want money for the things that they want. This goes back to the increase in spending during the early half of the 20th century, including groups like Southern Democrats, which people have mythified (?) to make it seem like they wanted non-government intervention. When you look at voting records and look at logrolling, it becomes quite clear that they liked it too.
Like many people have said before, I think it is simply a matter of the OP being from the US, which is generally much more ''conservative'' (neoclassical econ/ ''old school'' values) than the rest of the western countries. The internet, being international, allows for the dissemination of mainstream viewpoints which are much more leftwing than the US mainstream even if they would not be particularly leftwing in the writer's country.
Also, the content of the site/video on which comments are being made is obviously a factor.
Besides, the words liberal and conservative are very misleading as somebody mentionned before, it is much simpler and accuate to use the left/right divide, even if it is not perfect.
Personally, I don't think that the Internet has become more liberal, but instead, I think that there is somewhat of an equal balance. The reason I say this is because I usually watch political videos from time to time, and most of the time, the comments below reflect the side of the political spectrum the video is. IE, if i watch a video from fox news, most of the comments have a conservative tone to them, and there are usually 1-2 liberal people arguing with all those conservative people. Similarly with liberal videos, from MSNBC or whatnot, I see mostly liberal comments, with 1-2 conservative users arguing with those people.
If the Internet has truly more liberal, then it may cause some problems when it comes to topics such as welfare, (where imo, I think we should be a little more conservative) because there may be some topics where going the conservative method may work out better than the liberal method, but having a majority liberal mindset might not allow the conservative method to pass.
When it comes to the general view of TL members, I haven't really seen enough people with their views to make a decision on that. (AS for me, I'm not really liberal or conservative, I'm more of a pragmatist, as in I prefer to do what the times call for.)
On July 05 2010 23:39 HnR)hT wrote: Of course, you could argue that the seeds of socialism are contained in the Bible, and that many traditional societies have been "socialistic." But material inequality is not sufficient for the development of socialist ideas.
Yet the people who follow said Bible are among some of the most conservative in the world.
I don't understand the phrase "the most conservative in the world," since the meaning of conservatism depends on the society you are talking about. For example, in the Soviet Union during the Gorbachev era, hardcore Communists were called "conservative." If you mean they adhere to a particular ideology which we in the West call "conservatism," then as a matter of empicrical statement of fact I cannot agree...
Yes you're right. This thread isn't going to go anywhere since the OP made a mistake by suggesting that Liberal and Conservative views are directly opposed to each other. That simply isn't the case.
In the UK we have a coalition of Conservatives and Liberals working together in government. Furthermore, the "Liberal Party of Australia" claims to adhere to conservatism.
It makes it even worse when you capitalize them like that, because liberal and Liberal, and conservative and Conservative are different things. Americans bastardized the terms first, and unfortunately it caught on so most people don't know what they're actually saying.
I'm convinced that 99% of the internet, TL included, doesn't know the difference.
The point is the terms are ambiguous. This debate should stop before it even starts. If you want to argue politics then find an issue with carefully defined stances and take a position; don't waste your time here.
On July 06 2010 00:30 Djzapz wrote: I don't have a source saying that, it would probably be a biased one if I did. (Not that I'm not biased, I encourage you to look into it though)
Look at the prominent scientists, engineers, doctors and businessmen - the conservative/liberal ratio plummets when you reach a high level of education. As an example, Louisiana is very red for instance - it's packed with people who hate "socialism" but they get the most government help to pull through.
By no means is my little research proof of anything but there's an obvious, apparent trend. On the other hand, a conservative person may not view intelligence the way I see it. I value science and education. Somehow it seems that many conservative people don't value science as much as they should and that's very sad. In fact the lack of interest for science is pretty much a conservative trademark in the US. Very big issue.
One could possibly attribute this to the manner in which people are educated in school. When I was in college, I remember plenty of teachers constantly teaching us that America was an evil empire and whatnot and how we exploit the world. If it wasn't part of the lesson plan, it was something the professors were always commenting on. If you disagreed, you'd instantly be shot down by the professor and everyone that wanted to kiss his/her ass. The simple fact is that for better or worse, we're often taught in colleges today to be ashamed for our country and feel guilt about how it's going all wrong. I've been forced to write plenty of reports about the effects of social inequalities, while never once being told to write a report or even do any research as to why these social inequalities continue to exist despite the availability of numerous resources to help people out today. I've had a professor regularly complain about how governments should just take over the banks and regulate businesses more, but then proceed to complain that he should be allowed to go through an airport without having any of his baggage checked or x-rayed as it was a violation of his rights.
To make a long story short, my college life was essentially professors left and right telling me that the government was in the wrong no matter what they were doing with little consistency across the board. At some point I realized that this is the socially acceptable stance (at least at my college). Add onto this the typical university band-wagoning that inevitably occurs because college kids are 100x more impressionable than they'd like to admit and it's really no surprise that there is a liberal bias when you go up the educational chain. Go to a university campus and try having an intelligent discussion as a conservative and it almost always degenerates into some nonsense about the Crusades and the Christian right wing with the obligatory Bush reference thrown in the mix...
As for the quip about science, I don't see how acceptance of science has anything to do with conservatism... Truth be told, there are plenty of well-educated people from all walks of life who hold conservative views. And yes, plenty of them accept scientific progress...
On July 06 2010 00:32 HnR)hT wrote: "Of course it's completely unrealistic and nigh impossible to uproot and deport the millions of illegal immigrants already in this country, but...."
Wait, why is it unrealistic? It's been done many, many times before, most famously (or infamously) by the German and the Russians during the war. Even Americans under Eisenhower could do it (search "operation wetback"). But now it is suddenly unrealistic?
The simple fact that you are bringing up WWII Germany and Russia should tell you why it'd be unrealistic and impossible to do in the USA. Operation Wetback was an effort focused on particular states and it was during a completely different era of American history. Arizona's law is pretty much a version of it on a smaller scale and given the amount of flak it's caught, do you really think that it would realistically pass across the entire nation? Illegal immigration isn't limited to Mexicans nor is it a problem limited to Arizona, Texas, and California. There are illegal immigrants from all races and nationalities all across the nation.
You want to line everyone in the USA up at the same time and check ID's or something?
Old people tend to be more conservative Young people tend to be more liberal
Old people, even if they use the internet, likely aren't contributing (i.e. comments / forum posts / etc). Young people tend to actively contribute more often than their old counterparts
On July 06 2010 00:56 SiNiquity wrote: Old people tend to be more conservative Young people tend to be more liberal
Old people, even if they use the internet, likely aren't contributing (i.e. comments / forum posts / etc). Young people tend to actively contribute more often than their old counterparts
Hence the internet is liberal.
I think, for the most part, the internet's (apparent) liberal bias boils down to this. Well, either this or every nation that isn't the United States having users online.
On July 06 2010 00:48 JinMaikeul wrote: The simple fact that you are bringing up WWII Germany and Russia should tell you why it'd be unrealistic and impossible to do in the USA.
I have trouble following your logic. One could give plenty of other examples of mass deportations of "undesirable populations" in recent history. The population exchange between Greece and Turkey after World War I, the mass expulsion of Germans from Poland and Czechoslovakia after World War II, the mass population exchange between India and Pakistan along religious lines when Pakistan was formed. The point is, where there's a will there's a way...
Operation Wetback was an effort focused on particular states and it was during a completely different era of American history. Arizona's law is pretty much a version of it on a smaller scale and given the amount of flak it's caught, do you really think that it would realistically pass across the entire nation?
Is your argument that such measures would be too unpopular and therefore politically unfeasible, or that they just wouldn't work? I thought it was the latter.
Illegal immigration isn't limited to Mexicans. There are illegal immigrants from all races and nationalities. You want to line everyone in the USA up at the same time and check ID's or something?
I'm not sure what your point is, but it is true that the overwhelming majority of illegal aliens in the U.S. are Mexicans...
On July 06 2010 00:10 Djzapz wrote: Smart people tend to lean towards the left =P
Look at the majority of the very smart people! Big claim I know but it's interesting to look into. It's surprising.
That is a ridiculous quote. First of all how do you define smart people. Those who are well educated, succesfull financially, or maybe world recognition? Second of all what are you trying to accomplish with what you wrote, that the so called smart people agreeing with something makes it true, if so that liberalism is true because "smart people are liberal". I think such a tendency to look to "smart people " for guidance based on their merits, and accomplishments, rather than being analytical of the rational or viewpoint they advocate lends itself to a)not relying on critical thinking b)complete idiocy as such
On July 06 2010 00:48 JinMaikeul wrote:One could possibly attribute this to the manner in which people are educated in school. When I was in college, I remember plenty of teachers constantly teaching us that America was an evil empire and whatnot and how we exploit the world. If it wasn't part of the lesson plan, it was something the professors were always commenting on. If you disagreed, you'd instantly be shot down by the professor and everyone that wanted to kiss his/her ass. The simple fact is that for better or worse, we're often taught in colleges today to be ashamed for our country and feel guilt about how it's going all wrong. I've been forced to write plenty of reports about the effects of social inequalities, while never once being told to write a report or even do any research as to why these social inequalities continue to exist despite the availability of numerous resources to help people out today. I've had a professor regularly complain about how governments should just take over the banks and regulate businesses more, but then proceed to complain that he should be allowed to go through an airport without having any of his baggage checked or x-rayed as it was a violation of his rights.
To make a long story short, my college life was essentially professors left and right telling me that the government was in the wrong no matter what they were doing with little consistency across the board. At some point I realized that this is the socially acceptable stance (at least at my college). Add onto this the typical university band-wagoning that inevitably occurs because college kids are 100x more impressionable than they'd like to admit and it's really no surprise that there is a liberal bias when you go up the educational chain. Go to a university campus and try having an intelligent discussion as a conservative and it almost always degenerates into some nonsense about the Crusades and the Christian right wing with the obligatory Bush reference thrown in the mix...
As for the quip about science, I don't see how acceptance of science has anything to do with conservatism... Truth be told, there are plenty of well-educated people from all walks of life who hold conservative views. And yes, plenty of them accept scientific progress...
It doesn't seem very plausible to me that the prominent "smart" people of our time are more prone to be liberal solely because they've been taught by teachers which overstepped their boundaries. It may play a role in it though, but it didn't happen for no reason. Highly educated people didn't suddenly decide to be liberals. I would argue that people with the mental capability of getting a PhD in biology for instance are more likely to be able to make the right deductions in their mind and I sincerely do believe that liberalism is a system which is better for our species as a whole.
That's not to say the government should "take over banks". Naturally it's easy for me to say conservatives all want to nuke Iran and it's easy to say all liberals want to be legally allowed to marry goats... The fact of the matter is, the healthy middle isn't exactly in the middle (which is subjective either way).
And of course a discussion as a conservative would degenerate into religion (which is a sign of what I'm explaining btw =P) and Bush or at the very least his administration if you're talking to a liberal. Currently, so many people have those ridiculous neo-con ideas which are quite literally dangerous.
I think it's ridiculous to think the reason behind it all is just because the teachers are liberal. Actual academics are packed with liberals for a reason.
On July 06 2010 00:56 SiNiquity wrote: Old people tend to be more conservative Young people tend to be more liberal
Old people, even if they use the internet, likely aren't contributing (i.e. comments / forum posts / etc). Young people tend to actively contribute more often than their old counterparts
Hence the internet is liberal.
"If you're young and Republican, you have no heart. If you're old and Republican, you have no brain."
On July 06 2010 00:10 Djzapz wrote: Smart people tend to lean towards the left =P
Look at the majority of the very smart people! Big claim I know but it's interesting to look into. It's surprising.
That is a ridiculous quote. First of all how do you define smart people. Those who are well educated, succesfull financially, or maybe world recognition? Second of all what are you trying to accomplish with what you wrote, that the so called smart people agreeing with something makes it true, if so that liberalism is true because "smart people are liberal". I think such a tendency to look to "smart people " for guidance based on their merits, and accomplishments, rather than being analytical of the rational or viewpoint they advocate lends itself to a)not relying on critical thinking b)complete idiocy as such
1) A ridiculous quote? I wrote it. Seriously. 2) I use the very "smart" people as a benchmark here. Successful people who have used their brains in order to make discoveries or to become exceptionally talented in their fields. 3) I accomplish nothing. If you cared to make a research at all you would see that educated people heavily lean liberal. Up to you to explain why... It doesn't "make it true". Thinking liberalism or conservatism can be "true" is truly retarded.
I don't base what I think on "what smart people think" but I think it would be ridiculous not to consider it. Stephen Hawking is a ridiculously good physicist. If he says something about politics, I'll put my mind to it even if it's conservative. FACT IS. It isn't... =(
On July 06 2010 00:48 JinMaikeul wrote: The simple fact that you are bringing up WWII Germany and Russia should tell you why it'd be unrealistic and impossible to do in the USA.
I have trouble following your logic. One could give plenty of other examples of mass deportations of "undesirable populations" in recent history. The population exchange between Greece and Turkey after World War I, the mass expulsion of Germans from Poland and Czechoslovakia after World War II, the mass population exchange between India and Pakistan along religious lines when Pakistan was formed. The point is, where there's a will there's a way...
Operation Wetback was an effort focused on particular states and it was during a completely different era of American history. Arizona's law is pretty much a version of it on a smaller scale and given the amount of flak it's caught, do you really think that it would realistically pass across the entire nation?
Is your argument that such measures would be too unpopular and therefore politically unfeasible, or that they just wouldn't work? I thought it was the latter.
Illegal immigration isn't limited to Mexicans. There are illegal immigrants from all races and nationalities. You want to line everyone in the USA up at the same time and check ID's or something?
I'm not sure what your point is, but it is true that the overwhelming majority of illegal aliens in the U.S. are Mexicans...
My point is that it's unrealistic and impossible not because it's physically impossible, but it's a completely impractical measure that would never pass. Despite the fact that it's technically possible, if it's impractical to apply, it's meaningless. That's like saying that you could theoretically just have world peace by telling everyone to get along. It's also why I feel communism is a stupid ideal and doesn't solve anything (because it requires all of humanity to look beyond itself as individuals).
But even beyond the practicality of such a measure passing, the amount of resources it would take to pull off a mass-purging of illegal immigrants from the entirety of the USA would be absurd...
On July 06 2010 00:48 JinMaikeul wrote:One could possibly attribute this to the manner in which people are educated in school. When I was in college, I remember plenty of teachers constantly teaching us that America was an evil empire and whatnot and how we exploit the world. If it wasn't part of the lesson plan, it was something the professors were always commenting on. If you disagreed, you'd instantly be shot down by the professor and everyone that wanted to kiss his/her ass. The simple fact is that for better or worse, we're often taught in colleges today to be ashamed for our country and feel guilt about how it's going all wrong. I've been forced to write plenty of reports about the effects of social inequalities, while never once being told to write a report or even do any research as to why these social inequalities continue to exist despite the availability of numerous resources to help people out today. I've had a professor regularly complain about how governments should just take over the banks and regulate businesses more, but then proceed to complain that he should be allowed to go through an airport without having any of his baggage checked or x-rayed as it was a violation of his rights.
To make a long story short, my college life was essentially professors left and right telling me that the government was in the wrong no matter what they were doing with little consistency across the board. At some point I realized that this is the socially acceptable stance (at least at my college). Add onto this the typical university band-wagoning that inevitably occurs because college kids are 100x more impressionable than they'd like to admit and it's really no surprise that there is a liberal bias when you go up the educational chain. Go to a university campus and try having an intelligent discussion as a conservative and it almost always degenerates into some nonsense about the Crusades and the Christian right wing with the obligatory Bush reference thrown in the mix...
As for the quip about science, I don't see how acceptance of science has anything to do with conservatism... Truth be told, there are plenty of well-educated people from all walks of life who hold conservative views. And yes, plenty of them accept scientific progress...
It doesn't seem very plausible to me that the prominent "smart" people of our time are more prone to be liberal solely because they've been taught by teachers which overstepped their boundaries. It may play a role in it though, but it didn't happen for no reason. Highly educated people didn't suddenly decide to be liberals. I would argue that people with the mental capability of getting a PhD in biology for instance are more likely to be able to make the right deductions in their mind and I sincerely do believe that liberalism is a system which is better for our species as a whole.
Another explanation (admittedly not the most idealistic) is that leftwing propaganda and rightwing propaganda respectively target people of different cultural backgrounds. In the Soviet Union, for a long time, the "smartest" people (those with the most education and culture, and also the highest IQs) were the most likely to be fanatical Bolsheviks. And when Hitler came to power on a wave of massive popular support, Germans were the most educated and cultured people in the world.
On July 06 2010 00:48 JinMaikeul wrote: The simple fact that you are bringing up WWII Germany and Russia should tell you why it'd be unrealistic and impossible to do in the USA.
I have trouble following your logic. One could give plenty of other examples of mass deportations of "undesirable populations" in recent history. The population exchange between Greece and Turkey after World War I, the mass expulsion of Germans from Poland and Czechoslovakia after World War II, the mass population exchange between India and Pakistan along religious lines when Pakistan was formed. The point is, where there's a will there's a way...
Operation Wetback was an effort focused on particular states and it was during a completely different era of American history. Arizona's law is pretty much a version of it on a smaller scale and given the amount of flak it's caught, do you really think that it would realistically pass across the entire nation?
Is your argument that such measures would be too unpopular and therefore politically unfeasible, or that they just wouldn't work? I thought it was the latter.
Illegal immigration isn't limited to Mexicans. There are illegal immigrants from all races and nationalities. You want to line everyone in the USA up at the same time and check ID's or something?
I'm not sure what your point is, but it is true that the overwhelming majority of illegal aliens in the U.S. are Mexicans...
My point is that it's unrealistic and impossible not because it's physically impossible, but it's a completely impractical measure that would never pass. Despite the fact that it's technically possible, if it's impractical to apply, it's meaningless. That's like saying that you could theoretically just have world peace by telling everyone to get along. It's also why I feel communism is a stupid ideal and doesn't solve anything (because it requires all of humanity to look beyond itself as individuals).
But even beyond the practicality of such a measure passing, the amount of resources it would take to pull off a mass-purging of illegal immigrants from the entirety of the USA would be absurd...
That's your view. I just hope you can back at up with reason and facts (I'm not going to ask you to do it here). Personally, I'm not convinced.
edit: The thought also occurs that your reasoning implies that, in a democracy, having unpopular positions is "meaningless" because they would never win the support they would need to get enacted. I think Tocqueville had something to say about these matters
On July 06 2010 00:48 JinMaikeul wrote:One could possibly attribute this to the manner in which people are educated in school. When I was in college, I remember plenty of teachers constantly teaching us that America was an evil empire and whatnot and how we exploit the world. If it wasn't part of the lesson plan, it was something the professors were always commenting on. If you disagreed, you'd instantly be shot down by the professor and everyone that wanted to kiss his/her ass. The simple fact is that for better or worse, we're often taught in colleges today to be ashamed for our country and feel guilt about how it's going all wrong. I've been forced to write plenty of reports about the effects of social inequalities, while never once being told to write a report or even do any research as to why these social inequalities continue to exist despite the availability of numerous resources to help people out today. I've had a professor regularly complain about how governments should just take over the banks and regulate businesses more, but then proceed to complain that he should be allowed to go through an airport without having any of his baggage checked or x-rayed as it was a violation of his rights.
To make a long story short, my college life was essentially professors left and right telling me that the government was in the wrong no matter what they were doing with little consistency across the board. At some point I realized that this is the socially acceptable stance (at least at my college). Add onto this the typical university band-wagoning that inevitably occurs because college kids are 100x more impressionable than they'd like to admit and it's really no surprise that there is a liberal bias when you go up the educational chain. Go to a university campus and try having an intelligent discussion as a conservative and it almost always degenerates into some nonsense about the Crusades and the Christian right wing with the obligatory Bush reference thrown in the mix...
As for the quip about science, I don't see how acceptance of science has anything to do with conservatism... Truth be told, there are plenty of well-educated people from all walks of life who hold conservative views. And yes, plenty of them accept scientific progress...
It doesn't seem very plausible to me that the prominent "smart" people of our time are more prone to be liberal solely because they've been taught by teachers which overstepped their boundaries. It may play a role in it though, but it didn't happen for no reason. Highly educated people didn't suddenly decide to be liberals. I would argue that people with the mental capability of getting a PhD in biology for instance are more likely to be able to make the right deductions in their mind and I sincerely do believe that liberalism is a system which is better for our species as a whole.
Another explanation (admittedly not the most idealistic) is that leftwing propaganda and rightwing propaganda respectively target people of different cultural backgrounds. In the Soviet Union, for a long time, the "smartest" people (those with the most education and culture, and also the highest IQs) were the most likely to be fanatical Bolsheviks. And when Hitler was democratically elected, Germans were the most educated and cultured people in the world.
Interesting connection but we both know that, yeah =P it's kind of a funny one
On July 06 2010 00:10 Djzapz wrote: Smart people tend to lean towards the left =P
Look at the majority of the very smart people! Big claim I know but it's interesting to look into. It's surprising.
That is a ridiculous quote. First of all how do you define smart people. Those who are well educated, succesfull financially, or maybe world recognition? Second of all what are you trying to accomplish with what you wrote, that the so called smart people agreeing with something makes it true, if so that liberalism is true because "smart people are liberal". I think such a tendency to look to "smart people " for guidance based on their merits, and accomplishments, rather than being analytical of the rational or viewpoint they advocate lends itself to a)not relying on critical thinking b)complete idiocy as such
1) A ridiculous quote? I wrote it. Seriously. 2) I use the very "smart" people as a benchmark here. Successful people who have used their brains in order to make discoveries or to become exceptionally talented in their fields. 3) I accomplish nothing. If you cared to make a research at all you would see that educated people heavily lean liberal. Up to you to explain why... It doesn't "make it true". Thinking liberalism or conservatism can be "true" is truly retarded.
I don't base what I think on "what smart people think" but I think it would be ridiculous not to consider it. Stephen Hawking is a ridiculously good physicist. If he says something about politics, I'll put my mind to it even if it's conservative. FACT IS. It isn't... =(
Even if you had some sort of study to prove this point, it completely ignores the question of whether their political stance is a result of their education or if it is a result of other factors such as some sort of bias in the academic community on a social level. Most of Hollywood is also liberal, but most people wouldn't attribute that to anything other than the fact that it's popular to be liberal there and not being liberal will often screw you out of opportunities. I don't think it's correct to assume that just because these people are academics, that their political stance is a result of their education. The majority of teachers in NYC are Democratic and it has little to do with anything other than the size of their paycheck and their benefits...
On July 05 2010 19:19 ActualSteve wrote: (I saw the thread from 2008; new administration, different players on the web ... this topic should be brought up to date.)
Seems like every time I watch a YouTube video about politics, I read the comments. Almost every time I read the comments, I see the conservative standpoint in the minority. Almost every time said standpoint is stated, 10+ people with opposing viewpoints jump at the opportunity of ridiculing the right.
Possible questions for you:: Do you think the internet has a liberal bias? Why? What implications does this have for our future? (Unnecessary, but I'll include it: Are TL users generally liberal?)
1. Please don't go Aegrean and mind fuck us all.
2. Say something insightful.
I'm HOPING someone who is conservative makes a stand here and everyone is mature about it. I'm also hoping that this can pass as a thread and not necessarily a blog. Apologize in advance if I'm mistaken... it's been awhile.
Some things to think about:
It's possible that the reason why you see such a prevailing liberal opinion is for other factors than that the internet is mainly liberal. It could be that conservatives just don't write as much comments as liberals; they don't visit the same web pages that you do maybe; or maybe conservatives use the internet to a lesser degree.
Implications for the future: let's say you're correct and the internet is "liberal." Let's take it a step further and say that most of these commentators are below 30 years old. I don't have any studies available to back me up, but I think it's rather common knowledge that a person tends to be more liberal when they are younger and incline more to the right as they age... Maybe in the future there will be a more "conservative" internet... doubt it thought ^_^
On July 06 2010 00:10 Djzapz wrote: Smart people tend to lean towards the left =P
Look at the majority of the very smart people! Big claim I know but it's interesting to look into. It's surprising.
That is a ridiculous quote. First of all how do you define smart people. Those who are well educated, succesfull financially, or maybe world recognition? Second of all what are you trying to accomplish with what you wrote, that the so called smart people agreeing with something makes it true, if so that liberalism is true because "smart people are liberal". I think such a tendency to look to "smart people " for guidance based on their merits, and accomplishments, rather than being analytical of the rational or viewpoint they advocate lends itself to a)not relying on critical thinking b)complete idiocy as such
1) A ridiculous quote? I wrote it. Seriously. 2) I use the very "smart" people as a benchmark here. Successful people who have used their brains in order to make discoveries or to become exceptionally talented in their fields. 3) I accomplish nothing. If you cared to make a research at all you would see that educated people heavily lean liberal. Up to you to explain why... It doesn't "make it true". Thinking liberalism or conservatism can be "true" is truly retarded.
I don't base what I think on "what smart people think" but I think it would be ridiculous not to consider it. Stephen Hawking is a ridiculously good physicist. If he says something about politics, I'll put my mind to it even if it's conservative. FACT IS. It isn't... =(
Even if you had some sort of study to prove this point, it completely ignores the question of whether their political stance is a result of their education or if it is a result of other factors such as some sort of bias in the academic community on a social level. Most of Hollywood is also liberal, but most people wouldn't attribute that to anything other than the fact that it's popular to be liberal there and not being liberal will often screw you out of opportunities.
Correlation doesn't prove causation, it's true - I'm just posing the problem, I believe I've said that three freaking times. It doesn't ignore the question. It doesn't have an answer. I'll use the word "educated" instead of "smart" because it's more realistic (but I'm also incline to believe that smart people are more likely to get educated =P). So why are educated people largely liberal? I don't know.
I strongly believe that Sam Harris's world view is more healthy than that of ANY conservative you can find. Read it. PS: Sam Harris is very educated =P
PS: Ben Stein... that idiot somehow got this thread's banner, yuck.
On July 06 2010 00:10 Djzapz wrote: Smart people tend to lean towards the left =P
Look at the majority of the very smart people! Big claim I know but it's interesting to look into. It's surprising.
That is a ridiculous quote. First of all how do you define smart people. Those who are well educated, succesfull financially, or maybe world recognition? Second of all what are you trying to accomplish with what you wrote, that the so called smart people agreeing with something makes it true, if so that liberalism is true because "smart people are liberal". I think such a tendency to look to "smart people " for guidance based on their merits, and accomplishments, rather than being analytical of the rational or viewpoint they advocate lends itself to a)not relying on critical thinking b)complete idiocy as such
1) A ridiculous quote? I wrote it. Seriously. 2) I use the very "smart" people as a benchmark here. Successful people who have used their brains in order to make discoveries or to become exceptionally talented in their fields. 3) I accomplish nothing. If you cared to make a research at all you would see that educated people heavily lean liberal. Up to you to explain why... It doesn't "make it true". Thinking liberalism or conservatism can be "true" is truly retarded.
I don't base what I think on "what smart people think" but I think it would be ridiculous not to consider it. Stephen Hawking is a ridiculously good physicist. If he says something about politics, I'll put my mind to it even if it's conservative. FACT IS. It isn't... =(
Even if you had some sort of study to prove this point, it completely ignores the question of whether their political stance is a result of their education or if it is a result of other factors such as some sort of bias in the academic community on a social level. Most of Hollywood is also liberal, but most people wouldn't attribute that to anything other than the fact that it's popular to be liberal there and not being liberal will often screw you out of opportunities.
Correlation doesn't prove causation, it's true - I'm just posing the problem, I believe I've said that three freaking times. It doesn't ignore the question. It doesn't have an answer. I'll use the word "educated" instead of "smart" because it's more realistic (but I'm also incline to believe that smart people are more likely to get educated =P). So why are educated people largely liberal? I don't know.
I strongly believe that Sam Harris's world view is more healthy than that of ANY conservative you can find. Read it. PS: Sam Harris is very educated =P
PS: Ben Stein... that idiot somehow got this thread's banner, yuck.
I actually found that read pretty interesting and sadly true.
On July 06 2010 00:10 Djzapz wrote: Smart people tend to lean towards the left =P
Look at the majority of the very smart people! Big claim I know but it's interesting to look into. It's surprising.
That is a ridiculous quote. First of all how do you define smart people. Those who are well educated, succesfull financially, or maybe world recognition? Second of all what are you trying to accomplish with what you wrote, that the so called smart people agreeing with something makes it true, if so that liberalism is true because "smart people are liberal". I think such a tendency to look to "smart people " for guidance based on their merits, and accomplishments, rather than being analytical of the rational or viewpoint they advocate lends itself to a)not relying on critical thinking b)complete idiocy as such
1) A ridiculous quote? I wrote it. Seriously. 2) I use the very "smart" people as a benchmark here. Successful people who have used their brains in order to make discoveries or to become exceptionally talented in their fields. 3) I accomplish nothing. If you cared to make a research at all you would see that educated people heavily lean liberal. Up to you to explain why... It doesn't "make it true". Thinking liberalism or conservatism can be "true" is truly retarded.
I don't base what I think on "what smart people think" but I think it would be ridiculous not to consider it. Stephen Hawking is a ridiculously good physicist. If he says something about politics, I'll put my mind to it even if it's conservative. FACT IS. It isn't... =(
Even if you had some sort of study to prove this point, it completely ignores the question of whether their political stance is a result of their education or if it is a result of other factors such as some sort of bias in the academic community on a social level. Most of Hollywood is also liberal, but most people wouldn't attribute that to anything other than the fact that it's popular to be liberal there and not being liberal will often screw you out of opportunities.
Correlation doesn't prove causation, it's true - I'm just posing the problem, I believe I've said that three freaking times. It doesn't ignore the question. It doesn't have an answer. I'll use the word "educated" instead of "smart" because it's more realistic (but I'm also incline to believe that smart people are more likely to get educated =P). So why are educated people largely liberal? I don't know.
I strongly believe that Sam Harris's world view is more healthy than that of ANY conservative you can find. Read it. PS: Sam Harris is very educated =P
PS: Ben Stein... that idiot somehow got this thread's banner, yuck.
I agree with you about Sam Harris. But trust me, there are a lot of conservatives at his level. You just need to look around more
On July 05 2010 19:19 ActualSteve wrote: (I saw the thread from 2008; new administration, different players on the web ... this topic should be brought up to date.)
Seems like every time I watch a YouTube video about politics, I read the comments. Almost every time I read the comments, I see the conservative standpoint in the minority. Almost every time said standpoint is stated, 10+ people with opposing viewpoints jump at the opportunity of ridiculing the right.
Possible questions for you:: Do you think the internet has a liberal bias? Why? What implications does this have for our future? (Unnecessary, but I'll include it: Are TL users generally liberal?)
1. Please don't go Aegrean and mind fuck us all.
2. Say something insightful.
I'm HOPING someone who is conservative makes a stand here and everyone is mature about it. I'm also hoping that this can pass as a thread and not necessarily a blog. Apologize in advance if I'm mistaken... it's been awhile.
Disclaimer: You're going to get about 2 paragraphs into this and think I'm a liberal just taking an opportunity to troll, but I assure you, I am not.
Short Answer: The internet artificially selects for a liberally biased population.
Long Answer:
1. We can safely assume that people who do not own computers are at the very least significantly less likely to be denizens of this hive of scum and villainy (HA HA, THE INTERNETS) than those people who do own computers.
2. Computers and the Internet are vaguely selective in that most of the reasons one would purchase one, appeal more strongly to those who are more intelligent. Video games are arguably "harder" to enjoy than, say TV is (let alone whatever it is your stereotypical rednecks are doing).
3. Thus, the Internet has already selected for a population that is skewed somewhat above the average as far as intelligence goes. Moreover, the majority of those people who are exceptions to this rule (most of the people who comment on Youtube, for instance) are likely to take the more common viewpoint among their peers, which on the internet is already being liberal.
Now, this appears to be me claiming that intelligence correlates positively with "liberal-ness" - and this is true, that is my belief, but only up to a point. To explain this, lets reverse the issue:
Liberal positions (using the modern understanding of the term) are, I think, generally characterized by a belief that the end result of conservative policies is unfair, or unjust. Marx rails against the exploitation of the proletariat, the Democrats seek openly to redistribute wealth, they seek to universalize healthcare coverage, and so forth. They are, in essence, trying to help other people.
This is, really, quite easy to support, on the face of it. Who doesn't want to help people? Who, really, is going to admit that they're perfectly happy with people dying from a curable illness because they cant afford treatment*?
I'm making an assumption here that with increasing intelligence comes increasing empathy, which is tenuous, to be sure - but certainly as intelligence increases the capacity we have for worrying about issues which are not of direct importance to our own well being increases.
Now, lets look at the result of, say, arguments against universal health care. It is an unavoidable fact that if you oppose universalized health care you must accept that some people will die when they could, perhaps, have lived with a universal system. This immediately puts conservatives in a fairly sticky position as far as arguments go. It is quite difficult to reconcile this kind of end-result with a concern for society - which is essentially what politics is, an argument over how best to serve society.
It takes a great deal of intellectual fortitude to take a long, hard, unbiased look at the arguments for both sides, and moreover it takes an intellect that has passed through the phase of believing every death is a tragedy that should be prevented at all costs. Such an intellect is, I would argue, more likely to side with conservatives than not, but that particular argument has nothing to do with answering your question. People capable of this kind of cold, logical, and prolonged thinking about very inflammatory issues are few and far between.
tl;dr: Conservatives are over-represented at the extreme ends of intelligence distributions, while Liberals are over-represented in the middle areas. The internet artificially selects a distribution that is biased away from the lower end of that distribution, thus resulting in an artificially high Liberal-to-Conservative ratio.
*Well, I am.
Having written that, I could posit another 3 possibilities for the appearance or fact of a liberal bias on the internet, but I think this one is sufficiently likely to degenerate into flames.
Disclaimer: Conservative
I think that most people on the internet are liberal because they are young and ignorant. It is easy to believe in change and helping out our fellow man when the truth is being hidden by a million veils. While I would love to see free health care the cost of this will drive U.S into the ground.
Now I realize that this is an international site and that there are many countries in Europe that have been able to implement some variant of health care and other liberal social programs but with >300 million people it isn't plausible to cover that many people, especially when there are 3x as many U.S citizens as there is in Russia (The largest population in Europe).
You spoke of how their is a correlation between intelligence and your standpoint on government and that is true. At the bottom of the group you have republican rednecks that want to protect their guns and their property (or what have you) and feel that uncle sam is an evil conglomerate (they probably don't know what that means either) that is out to control them. Then you have the average person that looks at Democratic nominees and how they are trying to help the common man (they are smooth talkers, I'll give them that). After those two groups you get to people that aren't ignorant; By that I mean you get to people that can form an opinion that is more than "I heard nancy say she wanted to help my family so I voted for her". From here you have the leaders and true members of the "Tea party" movement and you have upper middle class that actually follow politics.
After these groups you get to people that pay attention to the details. The people that pay attention to the details skew to the conservative favor because they know that at our current rate of spending we will owe china more than our country is worth in 20 years! (plus other hidden truths) Balancing the budget is being hidden behind the sick children that "Can't receive health care" (that's a lie). The reason why I keep bringing up health care in a "Is the internet liberal" thread is because that is the most widely debated American topic in the last year.
More of a sidenote than part of the actual argument, Getting free health care is not as much of a daunting task as the popular news stations would like you to think it is (especially for children and elders). There is no evil executive letting Aunt betty die of cancer that she could be cured of. Now that being said I think something could and should be done for health care and that isn't a government intrusion into the private sector and it certainly isn't mandatory health care.
What I propose is similar to a tax write off. An easy way to take care of your fellow man AND pay less money to the government (conservatives are having wet dreams about it). Every year about 60% of the American population have to pay some amount of taxes (40% don't have to pay or get money back) but what I propose is having the option to donate to a "Greater Society" charity group ran by independent companies and use the documentation of your charity donations to reduce your taxes by that amount.
Say you made 100,000 a year and paid 12,000 in taxes every april, With this plan you could donate 7,000 to charity and take 8,000 off your taxes (giving a big incentive to give to charity and cutting the governments spending money by upwards of 2/3rds. This is off topic so I am not going to go through all the details I have laid out for this but at 1/3rd of a budget (from april) and shutting down the government programs that aren't needed we can limit the size of government (tbh the only thing our government does right is find ways to botch the constitution) and put all of the charity money to the needy.
Using YouTube as a political compass will yield these results. Moreover I'd say the internet has a very conservative stance in general (amongst the companies that control it), if we were more liberal about the internet in general than plenty of countries would have the internet as a free, widely available resources. This isn't the case, in fact for those of us in USA and Canada especially our ISPS are increasingly conservative (read: greedy) when it comes to providing service, most if not all implementing some kind of traffic shaping policies.
If you guys want to see what liberal internet looks like - check out Sweden.
Edit: I think some people here have forgotten what the word liberal means....
"1. Please don't go Aegrean and mind fuck us all."
You make it seem as if he was smarter than everyone else. To be honest, I found the situation to be the total opposite.
To answer the question of the OP, a majority of the internet users in the world are from countries that are much more liberal than the US and thus the rest of the world thinks that the conservatives in the US are wrong in the head. Not that they agree with the US liberals, just that they really don't like the conservatives.
I don't think it has a liberal bias, I think it has an tolerance bias, a compassion bias, and an intellect bias.
On July 06 2010 00:10 Djzapz wrote: Smart people tend to lean towards the left =P
Look at the majority of the very smart people! Big claim I know but it's interesting to look into. It's surprising.
That is a ridiculous quote. First of all how do you define smart people. Those who are well educated, succesfull financially, or maybe world recognition? Second of all what are you trying to accomplish with what you wrote, that the so called smart people agreeing with something makes it true, if so that liberalism is true because "smart people are liberal". I think such a tendency to look to "smart people " for guidance based on their merits, and accomplishments, rather than being analytical of the rational or viewpoint they advocate lends itself to a)not relying on critical thinking b)complete idiocy as such
1) A ridiculous quote? I wrote it. Seriously. 2) I use the very "smart" people as a benchmark here. Successful people who have used their brains in order to make discoveries or to become exceptionally talented in their fields. 3) I accomplish nothing. If you cared to make a research at all you would see that educated people heavily lean liberal. Up to you to explain why... It doesn't "make it true". Thinking liberalism or conservatism can be "true" is truly retarded.
I don't base what I think on "what smart people think" but I think it would be ridiculous not to consider it. Stephen Hawking is a ridiculously good physicist. If he says something about politics, I'll put my mind to it even if it's conservative. FACT IS. It isn't... =(
Even if you had some sort of study to prove this point, it completely ignores the question of whether their political stance is a result of their education or if it is a result of other factors such as some sort of bias in the academic community on a social level. Most of Hollywood is also liberal, but most people wouldn't attribute that to anything other than the fact that it's popular to be liberal there and not being liberal will often screw you out of opportunities.
Correlation doesn't prove causation, it's true - I'm just posing the problem, I believe I've said that three freaking times. It doesn't ignore the question. It doesn't have an answer. I'll use the word "educated" instead of "smart" because it's more realistic (but I'm also incline to believe that smart people are more likely to get educated =P). So why are educated people largely liberal? I don't know.
I strongly believe that Sam Harris's world view is more healthy than that of ANY conservative you can find. Read it. PS: Sam Harris is very educated =P
PS: Ben Stein... that idiot somehow got this thread's banner, yuck.
I agree with you about Sam Harris. But trust me, there are a lot of conservatives at his level. You just need to look around more
I know there are a lot of conservatives at his level. Just significantly less than there are liberals. And both sides have idiots... My problem is that the right seems to have more idiots =P
Liberals have environmentalist nutjobs and a good amount of conspiracy theorists (though there are some "9/11 truthers" on the right), a bunch of biased news channels.
Conservatives have racists, "fiscal irresponsibility" (a lot more so than liberals btw!!!), people who don't know what socialism means, Texas, people who are fine with the way military is handled and funded, one *very* biased news channel.
On July 06 2010 01:57 Trezeguet23 wrote: I don't think it has a liberal bias, I think it has an tolerance bias, a compassion bias, and an intellect bias.
I think that what passes for mainstream conservatism in the US is regarded as being '2 goose steps to the right of Ghengis Khan' in the rest of the world.. Consequently with the net being international mainstream conservative opinion in the US is under-represented because the medium represents global as opposed to national trends.
To cite an example.. National health insurance is seen as socialism akin to communism in the US whereas its mainstream in Europe.. (you can go on with areas of policy like Israel, gun ownership abortion laws etc etc)
On July 06 2010 00:10 Djzapz wrote: Smart people tend to lean towards the left =P
Look at the majority of the very smart people! Big claim I know but it's interesting to look into. It's surprising.
That is a ridiculous quote. First of all how do you define smart people. Those who are well educated, succesfull financially, or maybe world recognition? Second of all what are you trying to accomplish with what you wrote, that the so called smart people agreeing with something makes it true, if so that liberalism is true because "smart people are liberal". I think such a tendency to look to "smart people " for guidance based on their merits, and accomplishments, rather than being analytical of the rational or viewpoint they advocate lends itself to a)not relying on critical thinking b)complete idiocy as such
1) A ridiculous quote? I wrote it. Seriously. 2) I use the very "smart" people as a benchmark here. Successful people who have used their brains in order to make discoveries or to become exceptionally talented in their fields. 3) I accomplish nothing. If you cared to make a research at all you would see that educated people heavily lean liberal. Up to you to explain why... It doesn't "make it true". Thinking liberalism or conservatism can be "true" is truly retarded.
I don't base what I think on "what smart people think" but I think it would be ridiculous not to consider it. Stephen Hawking is a ridiculously good physicist. If he says something about politics, I'll put my mind to it even if it's conservative. FACT IS. It isn't... =(
Even if you had some sort of study to prove this point, it completely ignores the question of whether their political stance is a result of their education or if it is a result of other factors such as some sort of bias in the academic community on a social level. Most of Hollywood is also liberal, but most people wouldn't attribute that to anything other than the fact that it's popular to be liberal there and not being liberal will often screw you out of opportunities.
Correlation doesn't prove causation, it's true - I'm just posing the problem, I believe I've said that three freaking times. It doesn't ignore the question. It doesn't have an answer. I'll use the word "educated" instead of "smart" because it's more realistic (but I'm also incline to believe that smart people are more likely to get educated =P). So why are educated people largely liberal? I don't know.
I strongly believe that Sam Harris's world view is more healthy than that of ANY conservative you can find. Read it. PS: Sam Harris is very educated =P
PS: Ben Stein... that idiot somehow got this thread's banner, yuck.
I agree with you about Sam Harris. But trust me, there are a lot of conservatives at his level. You just need to look around more
I know there are a lot of conservatives at his level. Just significantly less than there are liberals. And both sides have idiots... My problem is that the right seems to have more idiots =P
Liberals have environmentalist nutjobs and a good amount of conspiracy theorists (though there are some "9/11 truthers" on the right)
Conservatives have racists, "fiscal irresponsibility" (a lot more so than liberals btw!!!), people who don't know what socialism means, Texas, people who are fine with the way military is handled and funded.
PS: I'm just kidding about Texas (sort of)
The current democratic congress is fiscally irresponsible, so trying to say its more then liberals is a very moot point, and actually the the contrary of a fiscal Conservatives.
I have seen my fair share of liberal racists, and the current and that comes to mind is planed parenthood.
And in my opinion the left has more idiots then the right. Moot points...
On July 06 2010 02:00 Captain Calamity wrote: I think that what passes for mainstream conservatism in the US is regarded as being '2 goose steps to the right of Ghengis Khan' in the rest of the world.. Consequently with the net being international mainstream conservative opinion in the US is under-represented because the medium represents global as opposed to national trends.
To cite an example.. National health insurance is seen as socialism akin to communism in the US whereas its mainstream in Europe.. (you can go on with areas of policy like Israel, gun ownership abortion laws etc etc)
Living in Canada we get British media, US media, and Canadian media, and its quite easy to see by watching all three the US media greatly confuses the political landscape defining the 'right' and the 'left' completely different from what other countries would. (Stephen Harper Canada's current Prime Minister is actually considered liberal by the US, he's actually the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, and is one of our most conservative leaders in the past 20 years)
On July 06 2010 00:10 Djzapz wrote: Smart people tend to lean towards the left =P
Look at the majority of the very smart people! Big claim I know but it's interesting to look into. It's surprising.
That is a ridiculous quote. First of all how do you define smart people. Those who are well educated, succesfull financially, or maybe world recognition? Second of all what are you trying to accomplish with what you wrote, that the so called smart people agreeing with something makes it true, if so that liberalism is true because "smart people are liberal". I think such a tendency to look to "smart people " for guidance based on their merits, and accomplishments, rather than being analytical of the rational or viewpoint they advocate lends itself to a)not relying on critical thinking b)complete idiocy as such
1) A ridiculous quote? I wrote it. Seriously. 2) I use the very "smart" people as a benchmark here. Successful people who have used their brains in order to make discoveries or to become exceptionally talented in their fields. 3) I accomplish nothing. If you cared to make a research at all you would see that educated people heavily lean liberal. Up to you to explain why... It doesn't "make it true". Thinking liberalism or conservatism can be "true" is truly retarded.
I don't base what I think on "what smart people think" but I think it would be ridiculous not to consider it. Stephen Hawking is a ridiculously good physicist. If he says something about politics, I'll put my mind to it even if it's conservative. FACT IS. It isn't... =(
Even if you had some sort of study to prove this point, it completely ignores the question of whether their political stance is a result of their education or if it is a result of other factors such as some sort of bias in the academic community on a social level. Most of Hollywood is also liberal, but most people wouldn't attribute that to anything other than the fact that it's popular to be liberal there and not being liberal will often screw you out of opportunities.
Correlation doesn't prove causation, it's true - I'm just posing the problem, I believe I've said that three freaking times. It doesn't ignore the question. It doesn't have an answer. I'll use the word "educated" instead of "smart" because it's more realistic (but I'm also incline to believe that smart people are more likely to get educated =P). So why are educated people largely liberal? I don't know.
I strongly believe that Sam Harris's world view is more healthy than that of ANY conservative you can find. Read it. PS: Sam Harris is very educated =P
PS: Ben Stein... that idiot somehow got this thread's banner, yuck.
I agree with you about Sam Harris. But trust me, there are a lot of conservatives at his level. You just need to look around more
I know there are a lot of conservatives at his level. Just significantly less than there are liberals. And both sides have idiots... My problem is that the right seems to have more idiots =P
Liberals have environmentalist nutjobs and a good amount of conspiracy theorists (though there are some "9/11 truthers" on the right)
Conservatives have racists, "fiscal irresponsibility" (a lot more so than liberals btw!!!), people who don't know what socialism means, Texas, people who are fine with the way military is handled and funded.
PS: I'm just kidding about Texas (sort of)
The current democratic congress is fiscally irresponsible, so trying to say its more then liberals is a very moot point, and actually the the contrary of a fiscal Conservatives.
I have seen my fair share of liberal racists, and the current and that comes to mind is planed parenthood.
And in my opinion the left has more idiots then the right. Moot points...
We both think each other's wrong which is quite normal. But I'll say that conservatives are a lot less fiscally responsible =P... And it's quite obvious that the current government's been handed a messed up country but at least he's not lowering taxes like a berserker.
I never understood people who think ideology has something to do with fiscal responsibility. (maybe honesty, competence ?) When Republicans go on about spending and such that's just code for "giving money to lazy people", which is a cultural/moral issue more than it is economic, and it has nothing to do with the deficit. Managing the deficit is simply balancing spending against income.
@ixi.genocide, you're not the first conservative to worship at the altar of "realpolitik" and think that he's not ruled by ideology, unlike the rest. You'll actually find most of the facts in your post are completely wrong (universal healthcare wouldn't be more expensive, USA : Russia population is 1:2, not 1:3, there is a correlation between IQ and liberalism ) not to mention your invention of "real Tea-Party members", or your ridiculous generalization of why people vote for party X.
It honestly depends on how you label a conservative. While this is anecdotal entirely I have noticed that there exists very few hardcore conservatives among people in my age group. It seems as if the majority of those I associate with are libertarians and actually vote for the conservative party, which could easily explain why you see many liberal viewpoints online (since our age group are huge internet users). I believe that our generation is prone to more liberal social standards, and the division between conservative and liberal is more between fiscal policy.
Personally I am quite liberal when it comes to social issues, but very conservative when it comes to my views on government spending.
Keep in mind in this post I am using the terms conservative and liberal more in terms of how they relate to the corresponding Canadian political parties than the traditional definitions.
On July 06 2010 02:07 Mothxal wrote: I never understood people who think ideology has something to do with fiscal responsibility. Honesty, competence seem like better predictors. When Republicans go on about spending and such that's just code for "giving money to lazy people", which is a cultural/moral issue more than it is economic, and it has nothing to do with the deficit. Managing the deficit is simply balancing spending against income.
@ixi.genocide, you're not the first conservative to worship at the altar of "realpolitik" and think that he's not ruled by ideology, unlike the rest. You'll actually find most of the facts in your post are completely wrong (universal healthcare wouldn't be more expensive, USA : Russia population is 1:2, not 1:3, there is a correlation between IQ and liberalism ) not to mention your invention of "real Tea-Party members", or your ridiculous generalization of why people vote for party X.
I'm not saying that conservatism = irresponsibility and liberalism = responsibility. Obviously both can go either way. If your comments have anything to do with what I said I'm sorry I realize now that I didn't make it clear at all.
Lately, the conservative parties have been EXCEPTIONALLY BAD at handling the money - or so it seems to me.
On July 06 2010 00:10 Djzapz wrote: Smart people tend to lean towards the left =P
Look at the majority of the very smart people! Big claim I know but it's interesting to look into. It's surprising.
That is a ridiculous quote. First of all how do you define smart people. Those who are well educated, succesfull financially, or maybe world recognition? Second of all what are you trying to accomplish with what you wrote, that the so called smart people agreeing with something makes it true, if so that liberalism is true because "smart people are liberal". I think such a tendency to look to "smart people " for guidance based on their merits, and accomplishments, rather than being analytical of the rational or viewpoint they advocate lends itself to a)not relying on critical thinking b)complete idiocy as such
1) A ridiculous quote? I wrote it. Seriously. 2) I use the very "smart" people as a benchmark here. Successful people who have used their brains in order to make discoveries or to become exceptionally talented in their fields. 3) I accomplish nothing. If you cared to make a research at all you would see that educated people heavily lean liberal. Up to you to explain why... It doesn't "make it true". Thinking liberalism or conservatism can be "true" is truly retarded.
I don't base what I think on "what smart people think" but I think it would be ridiculous not to consider it. Stephen Hawking is a ridiculously good physicist. If he says something about politics, I'll put my mind to it even if it's conservative. FACT IS. It isn't... =(
Even if you had some sort of study to prove this point, it completely ignores the question of whether their political stance is a result of their education or if it is a result of other factors such as some sort of bias in the academic community on a social level. Most of Hollywood is also liberal, but most people wouldn't attribute that to anything other than the fact that it's popular to be liberal there and not being liberal will often screw you out of opportunities.
Correlation doesn't prove causation, it's true - I'm just posing the problem, I believe I've said that three freaking times. It doesn't ignore the question. It doesn't have an answer. I'll use the word "educated" instead of "smart" because it's more realistic (but I'm also incline to believe that smart people are more likely to get educated =P). So why are educated people largely liberal? I don't know.
I strongly believe that Sam Harris's world view is more healthy than that of ANY conservative you can find. Read it. PS: Sam Harris is very educated =P
PS: Ben Stein... that idiot somehow got this thread's banner, yuck.
I agree with you about Sam Harris. But trust me, there are a lot of conservatives at his level. You just need to look around more
I know there are a lot of conservatives at his level. Just significantly less than there are liberals. And both sides have idiots... My problem is that the right seems to have more idiots =P
Liberals have environmentalist nutjobs and a good amount of conspiracy theorists (though there are some "9/11 truthers" on the right)
Conservatives have racists, "fiscal irresponsibility" (a lot more so than liberals btw!!!), people who don't know what socialism means, Texas, people who are fine with the way military is handled and funded.
PS: I'm just kidding about Texas (sort of)
The current democratic congress is fiscally irresponsible, so trying to say its more then liberals is a very moot point, and actually the the contrary of a fiscal Conservatives.
I have seen my fair share of liberal racists, and the current and that comes to mind is planed parenthood.
And in my opinion the left has more idiots then the right. Moot points...
We both think each other's wrong which is quite normal. But I'll say that conservatives are a lot less fiscally responsible =P... And it's quite obvious that the current government's been handed a messed up country but at least he's not lowering taxes like a berserker.
Quit with the =P its not cute anymore. It also underlines what your aiming at.
You cannot generally say Conservatives are fiscally irresponsible, you just cannot because by the very definition of a fiscal Conservative is being responsible. How badly is up to you.
And the current Government made it INCREDIBLY WORSE. It's his problem now, and he's not helping the situation by saying it's still Bushes fault. Question, is a 8 trillion dollar bill helping? Simple answer no.
Actually, it would be good to lower taxes so the common folk can get some money.
On July 06 2010 02:07 Mothxal wrote:
I'm not saying that conservatism = irresponsibility and liberalism = responsibility
Lately, the conservative parties have been EXCEPTIONALLY BAD at handling the money - or so it seems to me.
Like I said before with the =P, it hints that was what your trying to say.
This is exactly what I was going to say about the Republican party. You must do note that politicians are an issue when talking about ideology. Point is they really shouldn't be used as a prime example.
On July 05 2010 19:19 ActualSteve wrote: (I saw the thread from 2008; new administration, different players on the web ... this topic should be brought up to date.)
Seems like every time I watch a YouTube video about politics, I read the comments. Almost every time I read the comments, I see the conservative standpoint in the minority. Almost every time said standpoint is stated, 10+ people with opposing viewpoints jump at the opportunity of ridiculing the right.
Possible questions for you:: Do you think the internet has a liberal bias? Why? What implications does this have for our future? (Unnecessary, but I'll include it: Are TL users generally liberal?)
1. Please don't go Aegrean and mind fuck us all.
2. Say something insightful.
I'm HOPING someone who is conservative makes a stand here and everyone is mature about it. I'm also hoping that this can pass as a thread and not necessarily a blog. Apologize in advance if I'm mistaken... it's been awhile.
I always thought most of the active users on the internet were younger, and that liberals tend to be more common among younger people. I could be wrong this is just what I always thought.
On July 06 2010 00:10 Djzapz wrote: Smart people tend to lean towards the left =P
Look at the majority of the very smart people! Big claim I know but it's interesting to look into. It's surprising.
That is a ridiculous quote. First of all how do you define smart people. Those who are well educated, succesfull financially, or maybe world recognition? Second of all what are you trying to accomplish with what you wrote, that the so called smart people agreeing with something makes it true, if so that liberalism is true because "smart people are liberal". I think such a tendency to look to "smart people " for guidance based on their merits, and accomplishments, rather than being analytical of the rational or viewpoint they advocate lends itself to a)not relying on critical thinking b)complete idiocy as such
1) A ridiculous quote? I wrote it. Seriously. 2) I use the very "smart" people as a benchmark here. Successful people who have used their brains in order to make discoveries or to become exceptionally talented in their fields. 3) I accomplish nothing. If you cared to make a research at all you would see that educated people heavily lean liberal. Up to you to explain why... It doesn't "make it true". Thinking liberalism or conservatism can be "true" is truly retarded.
I don't base what I think on "what smart people think" but I think it would be ridiculous not to consider it. Stephen Hawking is a ridiculously good physicist. If he says something about politics, I'll put my mind to it even if it's conservative. FACT IS. It isn't... =(
Even if you had some sort of study to prove this point, it completely ignores the question of whether their political stance is a result of their education or if it is a result of other factors such as some sort of bias in the academic community on a social level. Most of Hollywood is also liberal, but most people wouldn't attribute that to anything other than the fact that it's popular to be liberal there and not being liberal will often screw you out of opportunities.
Correlation doesn't prove causation, it's true - I'm just posing the problem, I believe I've said that three freaking times. It doesn't ignore the question. It doesn't have an answer. I'll use the word "educated" instead of "smart" because it's more realistic (but I'm also incline to believe that smart people are more likely to get educated =P). So why are educated people largely liberal? I don't know.
I strongly believe that Sam Harris's world view is more healthy than that of ANY conservative you can find. Read it. PS: Sam Harris is very educated =P
PS: Ben Stein... that idiot somehow got this thread's banner, yuck.
I agree with you about Sam Harris. But trust me, there are a lot of conservatives at his level. You just need to look around more
I know there are a lot of conservatives at his level. Just significantly less than there are liberals. And both sides have idiots... My problem is that the right seems to have more idiots =P
Liberals have environmentalist nutjobs and a good amount of conspiracy theorists (though there are some "9/11 truthers" on the right)
Conservatives have racists, "fiscal irresponsibility" (a lot more so than liberals btw!!!), people who don't know what socialism means, Texas, people who are fine with the way military is handled and funded.
PS: I'm just kidding about Texas (sort of)
The current democratic congress is fiscally irresponsible, so trying to say its more then liberals is a very moot point, and actually the the contrary of a fiscal Conservatives.
I have seen my fair share of liberal racists, and the current and that comes to mind is planed parenthood.
And in my opinion the left has more idiots then the right. Moot points...
We both think each other's wrong which is quite normal. But I'll say that conservatives are a lot less fiscally responsible =P... And it's quite obvious that the current government's been handed a messed up country but at least he's not lowering taxes like a berserker.
Quit with the =P its not cute anymore. It also underlines what your aiming at.
You cannot generally say Conservatives are fiscally irresponsible, you just cannot because by the very definition of a fiscal Conservative is being responsible. How badly is up to you.
And the current Government made it INCREDIBLY WORSE. It's his problem now, and he's not helping the situation by saying it's still Bushes fault. Question, is a 8 trillion dollar bill helping? Simple answer no.
Actually, it would be good to lower taxes so the common folk can get some money.
I'm not saying that conservatism = irresponsibility and liberalism = responsibility
Lately, the conservative parties have been EXCEPTIONALLY BAD at handling the money - or so it seems to me.
Like I said before with the =P, it hints that was what your trying to say.
This is exactly what I was going to say about the Republican party. You must do note that politicians are an issue when talking about ideology. Point is they really shouldn't be used as a prime example.
On July 06 2010 02:08 Wr3k wrote: It honestly depends on how you label a conservative. While this is anecdotal entirely I have noticed that there exists very few hardcore conservatives among people in my age group. It seems as if the majority of those I associate with are libertarians and actually vote for the conservative party, which could easily explain why you see many liberal viewpoints online (since our age group are huge internet users). I believe that our generation is prone to more liberal social standards, and the division between conservative and liberal is more between fiscal policy.
Personally I am quite liberal when it comes to social issues, but very conservative when it comes to my views on government spending.
Keep in mind in this post I am using the terms conservative and liberal more in terms of how they relate to the corresponding Canadian political parties than the traditional definitions.
In my experience in the US, I've also never noticed any "hardcore" conservatives among my peers (currently in high school). In elementary/middle school, most of my classmates would say that they're republicans, they support Bush, etc. but I would guess that this comes entirely from their parents. At the time, I was living in the only apartment complex in a very very rich town; now that I go to a magnet high school, nearly all of my peers lean to the left politically.
Since I haven't seen anyone defining modern liberal v. conservative yet, I propose that liberal means "one who supports forcing everyone to do x in order to attain a certain end y", and conservative "one who supports forcing everyone not to do x in order to attain y", I'd say you're going to get raped no matter what direction you're leaning
On July 06 2010 00:10 Djzapz wrote: Smart people tend to lean towards the left =P
Look at the majority of the very smart people! Big claim I know but it's interesting to look into. It's surprising.
That is a ridiculous quote. First of all how do you define smart people. Those who are well educated, succesfull financially, or maybe world recognition? Second of all what are you trying to accomplish with what you wrote, that the so called smart people agreeing with something makes it true, if so that liberalism is true because "smart people are liberal". I think such a tendency to look to "smart people " for guidance based on their merits, and accomplishments, rather than being analytical of the rational or viewpoint they advocate lends itself to a)not relying on critical thinking b)complete idiocy as such
1) A ridiculous quote? I wrote it. Seriously. 2) I use the very "smart" people as a benchmark here. Successful people who have used their brains in order to make discoveries or to become exceptionally talented in their fields. 3) I accomplish nothing. If you cared to make a research at all you would see that educated people heavily lean liberal. Up to you to explain why... It doesn't "make it true". Thinking liberalism or conservatism can be "true" is truly retarded.
I don't base what I think on "what smart people think" but I think it would be ridiculous not to consider it. Stephen Hawking is a ridiculously good physicist. If he says something about politics, I'll put my mind to it even if it's conservative. FACT IS. It isn't... =(
Even if you had some sort of study to prove this point, it completely ignores the question of whether their political stance is a result of their education or if it is a result of other factors such as some sort of bias in the academic community on a social level. Most of Hollywood is also liberal, but most people wouldn't attribute that to anything other than the fact that it's popular to be liberal there and not being liberal will often screw you out of opportunities.
Correlation doesn't prove causation, it's true - I'm just posing the problem, I believe I've said that three freaking times. It doesn't ignore the question. It doesn't have an answer. I'll use the word "educated" instead of "smart" because it's more realistic (but I'm also incline to believe that smart people are more likely to get educated =P). So why are educated people largely liberal? I don't know.
I strongly believe that Sam Harris's world view is more healthy than that of ANY conservative you can find. Read it. PS: Sam Harris is very educated =P
PS: Ben Stein... that idiot somehow got this thread's banner, yuck.
I agree with you about Sam Harris. But trust me, there are a lot of conservatives at his level. You just need to look around more
I know there are a lot of conservatives at his level. Just significantly less than there are liberals. And both sides have idiots... My problem is that the right seems to have more idiots =P
Liberals have environmentalist nutjobs and a good amount of conspiracy theorists (though there are some "9/11 truthers" on the right)
Conservatives have racists, "fiscal irresponsibility" (a lot more so than liberals btw!!!), people who don't know what socialism means, Texas, people who are fine with the way military is handled and funded.
PS: I'm just kidding about Texas (sort of)
The current democratic congress is fiscally irresponsible, so trying to say its more then liberals is a very moot point, and actually the the contrary of a fiscal Conservatives.
I have seen my fair share of liberal racists, and the current and that comes to mind is planed parenthood.
And in my opinion the left has more idiots then the right. Moot points...
We both think each other's wrong which is quite normal. But I'll say that conservatives are a lot less fiscally responsible =P... And it's quite obvious that the current government's been handed a messed up country but at least he's not lowering taxes like a berserker.
Quit with the =P its not cute anymore. It also underlines what your aiming at.
You cannot generally say Conservatives are fiscally irresponsible, you just cannot because by the very definition of a fiscal Conservative is being responsible. How badly is up to you.
And the current Government made it INCREDIBLY WORSE. It's his problem now, and he's not helping the situation by saying it's still Bushes fault. Question, is a 8 trillion dollar bill helping? Simple answer no.
Actually, it would be good to lower taxes so the common folk can get some money.
I'm not saying that conservatism = irresponsibility and liberalism = responsibility
Lately, the conservative parties have been EXCEPTIONALLY BAD at handling the money - or so it seems to me.
Like I said before with the =P, it hints that was what your trying to say.
This is exactly what I was going to say about the Republican party. You must do note that politicians are an issue when talking about ideology. Point is they really shouldn't be used as a prime example.
I think you're getting the quote tags confused. I never said that.
That is a ridiculous quote. First of all how do you define smart people. Those who are well educated, succesfull financially, or maybe world recognition? Second of all what are you trying to accomplish with what you wrote, that the so called smart people agreeing with something makes it true, if so that liberalism is true because "smart people are liberal". I think such a tendency to look to "smart people " for guidance based on their merits, and accomplishments, rather than being analytical of the rational or viewpoint they advocate lends itself to a)not relying on critical thinking b)complete idiocy as such
1) A ridiculous quote? I wrote it. Seriously. 2) I use the very "smart" people as a benchmark here. Successful people who have used their brains in order to make discoveries or to become exceptionally talented in their fields. 3) I accomplish nothing. If you cared to make a research at all you would see that educated people heavily lean liberal. Up to you to explain why... It doesn't "make it true". Thinking liberalism or conservatism can be "true" is truly retarded.
I don't base what I think on "what smart people think" but I think it would be ridiculous not to consider it. Stephen Hawking is a ridiculously good physicist. If he says something about politics, I'll put my mind to it even if it's conservative. FACT IS. It isn't... =(
Even if you had some sort of study to prove this point, it completely ignores the question of whether their political stance is a result of their education or if it is a result of other factors such as some sort of bias in the academic community on a social level. Most of Hollywood is also liberal, but most people wouldn't attribute that to anything other than the fact that it's popular to be liberal there and not being liberal will often screw you out of opportunities.
Correlation doesn't prove causation, it's true - I'm just posing the problem, I believe I've said that three freaking times. It doesn't ignore the question. It doesn't have an answer. I'll use the word "educated" instead of "smart" because it's more realistic (but I'm also incline to believe that smart people are more likely to get educated =P). So why are educated people largely liberal? I don't know.
I strongly believe that Sam Harris's world view is more healthy than that of ANY conservative you can find. Read it. PS: Sam Harris is very educated =P
PS: Ben Stein... that idiot somehow got this thread's banner, yuck.
I agree with you about Sam Harris. But trust me, there are a lot of conservatives at his level. You just need to look around more
I know there are a lot of conservatives at his level. Just significantly less than there are liberals. And both sides have idiots... My problem is that the right seems to have more idiots =P
Liberals have environmentalist nutjobs and a good amount of conspiracy theorists (though there are some "9/11 truthers" on the right)
Conservatives have racists, "fiscal irresponsibility" (a lot more so than liberals btw!!!), people who don't know what socialism means, Texas, people who are fine with the way military is handled and funded.
PS: I'm just kidding about Texas (sort of)
The current democratic congress is fiscally irresponsible, so trying to say its more then liberals is a very moot point, and actually the the contrary of a fiscal Conservatives.
I have seen my fair share of liberal racists, and the current and that comes to mind is planed parenthood.
And in my opinion the left has more idiots then the right. Moot points...
We both think each other's wrong which is quite normal. But I'll say that conservatives are a lot less fiscally responsible =P... And it's quite obvious that the current government's been handed a messed up country but at least he's not lowering taxes like a berserker.
Quit with the =P its not cute anymore. It also underlines what your aiming at.
You cannot generally say Conservatives are fiscally irresponsible, you just cannot because by the very definition of a fiscal Conservative is being responsible. How badly is up to you.
And the current Government made it INCREDIBLY WORSE. It's his problem now, and he's not helping the situation by saying it's still Bushes fault. Question, is a 8 trillion dollar bill helping? Simple answer no.
Actually, it would be good to lower taxes so the common folk can get some money.
On July 06 2010 02:07 Mothxal wrote:
I'm not saying that conservatism = irresponsibility and liberalism = responsibility
Lately, the conservative parties have been EXCEPTIONALLY BAD at handling the money - or so it seems to me.
Like I said before with the =P, it hints that was what your trying to say.
This is exactly what I was going to say about the Republican party. You must do note that politicians are an issue when talking about ideology. Point is they really shouldn't be used as a prime example.
I think you're getting the quote tags confused. I never said that.
On July 06 2010 02:08 Wr3k wrote: It honestly depends on how you label a conservative. While this is anecdotal entirely I have noticed that there exists very few hardcore conservatives among people in my age group. It seems as if the majority of those I associate with are libertarians and actually vote for the conservative party, which could easily explain why you see many liberal viewpoints online (since our age group are huge internet users). I believe that our generation is prone to more liberal social standards, and the division between conservative and liberal is more between fiscal policy.
Personally I am quite liberal when it comes to social issues, but very conservative when it comes to my views on government spending.
Keep in mind in this post I am using the terms conservative and liberal more in terms of how they relate to the corresponding Canadian political parties than the traditional definitions.
In my experience in the US, I've also never noticed any "hardcore" conservatives among my peers (currently in high school). In elementary/middle school, most of my classmates would say that they're republicans, they support Bush, etc. but I would guess that this comes entirely from their parents. At the time, I was living in the only apartment complex in a very very rich town; now that I go to a magnet high school, nearly all of my peers lean to the left politically.
Yeah, I live in a very conservative city, and I find that most of the older crowd are conservative party supporters, while in the younger crowd you see more liberals and libertarians. I think a massive number of people who are quite liberal still vote for the conservative party in Canada due to apparent fiscal irresponsibility from other parties.
That is a ridiculous quote. First of all how do you define smart people. Those who are well educated, succesfull financially, or maybe world recognition? Second of all what are you trying to accomplish with what you wrote, that the so called smart people agreeing with something makes it true, if so that liberalism is true because "smart people are liberal". I think such a tendency to look to "smart people " for guidance based on their merits, and accomplishments, rather than being analytical of the rational or viewpoint they advocate lends itself to a)not relying on critical thinking b)complete idiocy as such
1) A ridiculous quote? I wrote it. Seriously. 2) I use the very "smart" people as a benchmark here. Successful people who have used their brains in order to make discoveries or to become exceptionally talented in their fields. 3) I accomplish nothing. If you cared to make a research at all you would see that educated people heavily lean liberal. Up to you to explain why... It doesn't "make it true". Thinking liberalism or conservatism can be "true" is truly retarded.
I don't base what I think on "what smart people think" but I think it would be ridiculous not to consider it. Stephen Hawking is a ridiculously good physicist. If he says something about politics, I'll put my mind to it even if it's conservative. FACT IS. It isn't... =(
Even if you had some sort of study to prove this point, it completely ignores the question of whether their political stance is a result of their education or if it is a result of other factors such as some sort of bias in the academic community on a social level. Most of Hollywood is also liberal, but most people wouldn't attribute that to anything other than the fact that it's popular to be liberal there and not being liberal will often screw you out of opportunities.
Correlation doesn't prove causation, it's true - I'm just posing the problem, I believe I've said that three freaking times. It doesn't ignore the question. It doesn't have an answer. I'll use the word "educated" instead of "smart" because it's more realistic (but I'm also incline to believe that smart people are more likely to get educated =P). So why are educated people largely liberal? I don't know.
I strongly believe that Sam Harris's world view is more healthy than that of ANY conservative you can find. Read it. PS: Sam Harris is very educated =P
PS: Ben Stein... that idiot somehow got this thread's banner, yuck.
I agree with you about Sam Harris. But trust me, there are a lot of conservatives at his level. You just need to look around more
I know there are a lot of conservatives at his level. Just significantly less than there are liberals. And both sides have idiots... My problem is that the right seems to have more idiots =P
Liberals have environmentalist nutjobs and a good amount of conspiracy theorists (though there are some "9/11 truthers" on the right)
Conservatives have racists, "fiscal irresponsibility" (a lot more so than liberals btw!!!), people who don't know what socialism means, Texas, people who are fine with the way military is handled and funded.
PS: I'm just kidding about Texas (sort of)
The current democratic congress is fiscally irresponsible, so trying to say its more then liberals is a very moot point, and actually the the contrary of a fiscal Conservatives.
I have seen my fair share of liberal racists, and the current and that comes to mind is planed parenthood.
And in my opinion the left has more idiots then the right. Moot points...
We both think each other's wrong which is quite normal. But I'll say that conservatives are a lot less fiscally responsible =P... And it's quite obvious that the current government's been handed a messed up country but at least he's not lowering taxes like a berserker.
Quit with the =P its not cute anymore. It also underlines what your aiming at.
You cannot generally say Conservatives are fiscally irresponsible, you just cannot because by the very definition of a fiscal Conservative is being responsible. How badly is up to you.
And the current Government made it INCREDIBLY WORSE. It's his problem now, and he's not helping the situation by saying it's still Bushes fault. Question, is a 8 trillion dollar bill helping? Simple answer no.
Actually, it would be good to lower taxes so the common folk can get some money.
On July 06 2010 02:07 Mothxal wrote:
I'm not saying that conservatism = irresponsibility and liberalism = responsibility
Lately, the conservative parties have been EXCEPTIONALLY BAD at handling the money - or so it seems to me.
Like I said before with the =P, it hints that was what your trying to say.
This is exactly what I was going to say about the Republican party. You must do note that politicians are an issue when talking about ideology. Point is they really shouldn't be used as a prime example.
No cute tongues then....
You know nothing about economics. Go home =(
Wow, such a comeback, care to provide evidence or are you just going to mud sling because you underwear got twisted?
Guess I'm not as smart as a liberal....
Mothxal,
My mistake, you should know who that was aimed at.
On July 06 2010 01:19 Djzapz wrote: [quote] 1) A ridiculous quote? I wrote it. Seriously. 2) I use the very "smart" people as a benchmark here. Successful people who have used their brains in order to make discoveries or to become exceptionally talented in their fields. 3) I accomplish nothing. If you cared to make a research at all you would see that educated people heavily lean liberal. Up to you to explain why... It doesn't "make it true". Thinking liberalism or conservatism can be "true" is truly retarded.
I don't base what I think on "what smart people think" but I think it would be ridiculous not to consider it. Stephen Hawking is a ridiculously good physicist. If he says something about politics, I'll put my mind to it even if it's conservative. FACT IS. It isn't... =(
Even if you had some sort of study to prove this point, it completely ignores the question of whether their political stance is a result of their education or if it is a result of other factors such as some sort of bias in the academic community on a social level. Most of Hollywood is also liberal, but most people wouldn't attribute that to anything other than the fact that it's popular to be liberal there and not being liberal will often screw you out of opportunities.
Correlation doesn't prove causation, it's true - I'm just posing the problem, I believe I've said that three freaking times. It doesn't ignore the question. It doesn't have an answer. I'll use the word "educated" instead of "smart" because it's more realistic (but I'm also incline to believe that smart people are more likely to get educated =P). So why are educated people largely liberal? I don't know.
I strongly believe that Sam Harris's world view is more healthy than that of ANY conservative you can find. Read it. PS: Sam Harris is very educated =P
PS: Ben Stein... that idiot somehow got this thread's banner, yuck.
I agree with you about Sam Harris. But trust me, there are a lot of conservatives at his level. You just need to look around more
I know there are a lot of conservatives at his level. Just significantly less than there are liberals. And both sides have idiots... My problem is that the right seems to have more idiots =P
Liberals have environmentalist nutjobs and a good amount of conspiracy theorists (though there are some "9/11 truthers" on the right)
Conservatives have racists, "fiscal irresponsibility" (a lot more so than liberals btw!!!), people who don't know what socialism means, Texas, people who are fine with the way military is handled and funded.
PS: I'm just kidding about Texas (sort of)
The current democratic congress is fiscally irresponsible, so trying to say its more then liberals is a very moot point, and actually the the contrary of a fiscal Conservatives.
I have seen my fair share of liberal racists, and the current and that comes to mind is planed parenthood.
And in my opinion the left has more idiots then the right. Moot points...
We both think each other's wrong which is quite normal. But I'll say that conservatives are a lot less fiscally responsible =P... And it's quite obvious that the current government's been handed a messed up country but at least he's not lowering taxes like a berserker.
Quit with the =P its not cute anymore. It also underlines what your aiming at.
You cannot generally say Conservatives are fiscally irresponsible, you just cannot because by the very definition of a fiscal Conservative is being responsible. How badly is up to you.
And the current Government made it INCREDIBLY WORSE. It's his problem now, and he's not helping the situation by saying it's still Bushes fault. Question, is a 8 trillion dollar bill helping? Simple answer no.
Actually, it would be good to lower taxes so the common folk can get some money.
On July 06 2010 02:07 Mothxal wrote:
I'm not saying that conservatism = irresponsibility and liberalism = responsibility
Lately, the conservative parties have been EXCEPTIONALLY BAD at handling the money - or so it seems to me.
Like I said before with the =P, it hints that was what your trying to say.
This is exactly what I was going to say about the Republican party. You must do note that politicians are an issue when talking about ideology. Point is they really shouldn't be used as a prime example.
No cute tongues then....
You know nothing about economics. Go home =(
Wow, such a comeback, care to provide evidence or are you just going to mud sling because you underwear got twisted?
Guess I'm not as smart as a liberal....
Mothxal,
My mistake, you should know who that was aimed at.
Excuse me, evidence? You didn't provide any. I can just push you away with the back of my hand. You don't have any grounds to tell me I need evidence. If you told me you saw a unicorn I'd tell you to get back in your cage.
I often find that there are many liberals on the internet, especially on places like Reddit (which still is a great site). Though, on Youtube, most comments seem to be by 8 year olds with nazi inspirations...
Anyways, I am a marxist so both the liberal and conservative flavor of reactionaries annoy me.
You cannot really define conservative and liberal too clearly... Overall conservatives try to maintain order, keep things as they are or try to return to the way things were a while ago. Liberal means more modernist, forward-looking stance.
Even if you had some sort of study to prove this point, it completely ignores the question of whether their political stance is a result of their education or if it is a result of other factors such as some sort of bias in the academic community on a social level. Most of Hollywood is also liberal, but most people wouldn't attribute that to anything other than the fact that it's popular to be liberal there and not being liberal will often screw you out of opportunities.
Correlation doesn't prove causation, it's true - I'm just posing the problem, I believe I've said that three freaking times. It doesn't ignore the question. It doesn't have an answer. I'll use the word "educated" instead of "smart" because it's more realistic (but I'm also incline to believe that smart people are more likely to get educated =P). So why are educated people largely liberal? I don't know.
I strongly believe that Sam Harris's world view is more healthy than that of ANY conservative you can find. Read it. PS: Sam Harris is very educated =P
PS: Ben Stein... that idiot somehow got this thread's banner, yuck.
I agree with you about Sam Harris. But trust me, there are a lot of conservatives at his level. You just need to look around more
I know there are a lot of conservatives at his level. Just significantly less than there are liberals. And both sides have idiots... My problem is that the right seems to have more idiots =P
Liberals have environmentalist nutjobs and a good amount of conspiracy theorists (though there are some "9/11 truthers" on the right)
Conservatives have racists, "fiscal irresponsibility" (a lot more so than liberals btw!!!), people who don't know what socialism means, Texas, people who are fine with the way military is handled and funded.
PS: I'm just kidding about Texas (sort of)
The current democratic congress is fiscally irresponsible, so trying to say its more then liberals is a very moot point, and actually the the contrary of a fiscal Conservatives.
I have seen my fair share of liberal racists, and the current and that comes to mind is planed parenthood.
And in my opinion the left has more idiots then the right. Moot points...
We both think each other's wrong which is quite normal. But I'll say that conservatives are a lot less fiscally responsible =P... And it's quite obvious that the current government's been handed a messed up country but at least he's not lowering taxes like a berserker.
Quit with the =P its not cute anymore. It also underlines what your aiming at.
You cannot generally say Conservatives are fiscally irresponsible, you just cannot because by the very definition of a fiscal Conservative is being responsible. How badly is up to you.
And the current Government made it INCREDIBLY WORSE. It's his problem now, and he's not helping the situation by saying it's still Bushes fault. Question, is a 8 trillion dollar bill helping? Simple answer no.
Actually, it would be good to lower taxes so the common folk can get some money.
On July 06 2010 02:07 Mothxal wrote:
I'm not saying that conservatism = irresponsibility and liberalism = responsibility
Lately, the conservative parties have been EXCEPTIONALLY BAD at handling the money - or so it seems to me.
Like I said before with the =P, it hints that was what your trying to say.
This is exactly what I was going to say about the Republican party. You must do note that politicians are an issue when talking about ideology. Point is they really shouldn't be used as a prime example.
No cute tongues then....
You know nothing about economics. Go home =(
Wow, such a comeback, care to provide evidence or are you just going to mud sling because you underwear got twisted?
Guess I'm not as smart as a liberal....
Mothxal,
My mistake, you should know who that was aimed at.
Excuse me, evidence? You didn't provide any. I can just push you away with the back of my hand. You don't have any grounds to tell me I need evidence. If you told me you saw a unicorn I'd tell you to get back in your cage.
Excuse me sir,
This little thing has been quite peaceful.
When did you get so ruffled to personally attack somebody? You want to say I have no economics and say I should go home (not to mention I writing on the internet really doesn't make sense).
I do so have grounds to question you when you go after me personally. I don't know what qualifies you have more voice then I do, so all I'm seeing is tantamount to anger over a moot point.
And If somebody told me a 8 trillion dollar bill is helping our economy I would say the same thing (this really should be obvious sarcasm).
Oh its not like you provided any evidence, so I don't know what high ground you try to put yourself on, but you forget theres no advantage. OH do remember this is the conversation between you and me, so don't go further then that.
I really don't know what made you go off the wall, but I guess it was bound to happen to somebody.
Anyways,
the 8 trillion dollars has NOT helped at all, it was a pet project to get things they wanted passed and that was all it was. That's not pulling out all the bull that it was in it for democratic pet projects.
People learn about the classical meanings (old world?) for the words Conservative and Liberal and they start developing airs -.-. I'll give you a hint kids. Just because you mention that you know what "liberalism" entails doesn't make you special.
Interesting thread otherwise... one segment arguing about how no one understands the language that they are using, another group debating on whether charity weakens those lazy poor people and another group trying to explain political affiliation as a marker for the intelligence of a person.
Edit: /\ You understand the concept of Keynesian fiscal policy right? The active use of monetary and fiscal tools to combat the effects of a depression are part of the cannon of mainstream of Economic theory.To not spend money on a fiscal stimulus is either insanity or ignorance. The stimulus bill was about 1/2 as large as necessary according to modern theory.
"You cannot generally say Conservatives are fiscally irresponsible, you just cannot because by the very definition of a fiscal Conservative is being responsible."
Silly semantics. The American mainstream "Conservative" movement has accepted Reagan and Bush Jr. as conservatives. They are prime examples of a conservative profligacy.
When did you get so ruffled to personally attack somebody? You want to say I have no economics and say I should go home (not to mention I writing on the internet really doesn't make sense).
-Interprets figurative lines literally.
I do so have grounds to question you when you go after me personally. I don't know what qualifies you have more voice then I do, so all I'm seeing is tantamount to anger over a moot point.
-Believes that you acquire grounds to go question someone after that person "goes after you"
And If somebody told me a 8 trillion dollar bill is helping our economy I would say the same thing (this really should be obvious sarcasm).
What bill is this?
Oh its not like you provided any evidence, so I don't know what high ground you try to put yourself on, but you forget theres no advantage. OH do remember this is the conversation between you and me, so don't go further then that.
I really don't know what made you go off the wall, but I guess it was bound to happen to somebody.
Anyways,
the 8 trillion dollars has NOT helped at all, it was a pet project to get things they wanted passed and that was all it was. That's not pulling out all the bull that it was in it for democratic pet projects.
I don't think the US has spent 8 trillions... And if such a bill exists I would like for you too show me and then I'll tell you what I think. I just don't remember hearing about it =(
PS: The US hasn't spent 8 trillion dollars on a single bill - saying "the 8 trillion dollars has not helped" is disingenuous and implies that the whole 8 trillions have been wasted which is ABSURD beyond belief.
On July 06 2010 01:33 Djzapz wrote: [quote] Correlation doesn't prove causation, it's true - I'm just posing the problem, I believe I've said that three freaking times. It doesn't ignore the question. It doesn't have an answer. I'll use the word "educated" instead of "smart" because it's more realistic (but I'm also incline to believe that smart people are more likely to get educated =P). So why are educated people largely liberal? I don't know.
I strongly believe that Sam Harris's world view is more healthy than that of ANY conservative you can find. Read it. PS: Sam Harris is very educated =P
PS: Ben Stein... that idiot somehow got this thread's banner, yuck.
I agree with you about Sam Harris. But trust me, there are a lot of conservatives at his level. You just need to look around more
I know there are a lot of conservatives at his level. Just significantly less than there are liberals. And both sides have idiots... My problem is that the right seems to have more idiots =P
Liberals have environmentalist nutjobs and a good amount of conspiracy theorists (though there are some "9/11 truthers" on the right)
Conservatives have racists, "fiscal irresponsibility" (a lot more so than liberals btw!!!), people who don't know what socialism means, Texas, people who are fine with the way military is handled and funded.
PS: I'm just kidding about Texas (sort of)
The current democratic congress is fiscally irresponsible, so trying to say its more then liberals is a very moot point, and actually the the contrary of a fiscal Conservatives.
I have seen my fair share of liberal racists, and the current and that comes to mind is planed parenthood.
And in my opinion the left has more idiots then the right. Moot points...
We both think each other's wrong which is quite normal. But I'll say that conservatives are a lot less fiscally responsible =P... And it's quite obvious that the current government's been handed a messed up country but at least he's not lowering taxes like a berserker.
Quit with the =P its not cute anymore. It also underlines what your aiming at.
You cannot generally say Conservatives are fiscally irresponsible, you just cannot because by the very definition of a fiscal Conservative is being responsible. How badly is up to you.
And the current Government made it INCREDIBLY WORSE. It's his problem now, and he's not helping the situation by saying it's still Bushes fault. Question, is a 8 trillion dollar bill helping? Simple answer no.
Actually, it would be good to lower taxes so the common folk can get some money.
On July 06 2010 02:07 Mothxal wrote:
I'm not saying that conservatism = irresponsibility and liberalism = responsibility
Lately, the conservative parties have been EXCEPTIONALLY BAD at handling the money - or so it seems to me.
Like I said before with the =P, it hints that was what your trying to say.
This is exactly what I was going to say about the Republican party. You must do note that politicians are an issue when talking about ideology. Point is they really shouldn't be used as a prime example.
No cute tongues then....
You know nothing about economics. Go home =(
Wow, such a comeback, care to provide evidence or are you just going to mud sling because you underwear got twisted?
Guess I'm not as smart as a liberal....
Mothxal,
My mistake, you should know who that was aimed at.
Excuse me, evidence? You didn't provide any. I can just push you away with the back of my hand. You don't have any grounds to tell me I need evidence. If you told me you saw a unicorn I'd tell you to get back in your cage.
Excuse me sir,
This little thing has been quite peaceful.
When did you get so ruffled to personally attack somebody? You want to say I have no economics and say I should go home (not to mention I writing on the internet really doesn't make sense).
I do so have grounds to question you when you go after me personally. I don't know what qualifies you have more voice then I do, so all I'm seeing is tantamount to anger over a moot point.
And If somebody told me a 8 trillion dollar bill is helping our economy I would say the same thing (this really should be obvious sarcasm).
Oh its not like you provided any evidence, so I don't know what high ground you try to put yourself on, but you forget theres no advantage. OH do remember this is the conversation between you and me, so don't go further then that.
I really don't know what made you go off the wall, but I guess it was bound to happen to somebody.
Anyways,
the 8 trillion dollars has NOT helped at all, it was a pet project to get things they wanted passed and that was all it was. That's not pulling out all the bull that it was in it for democratic pet projects.
Most economists agree that the bailout was a necessary function in order to keep the economy alive whatsoever, both from the right and left. Though, i'm sure there is disagreement between the execution and details of said bill, the bill itself was necessary.
Why the internet has a liberal bias I can't safely say but what I do know is that younger people tend to be more idealistic hence liberal. I think thats the supreme difference between a teenager and, say, a twenty-six year old. The older you get the more you understand and the less you think you know everything.
On July 05 2010 19:30 endy wrote: Average IQ of youtube comments posters is barely above my grandmother's APM.
Lmao this is awesome! However the internet has become the worlds new encyclopedia and it not only holds yet funds minds with both true and conspirist information, take for example all these 'preppers' people whom are readily stocked to survive 6 months in there cellar if WW3 started 2moro, this is a great phenomenon bought on by such forums identified by he internet! The ease at which vast amount of information can be acquired questioned and answered in a relatively quick instance by a world wide population is outstanding and can only help not hinder the minds advancement if used in the correct way.
-Believes that you acquire grounds to go question someone after that person "goes after you"
What bill is this?
I don't think the US has spent 8 trillions... And if such a bill exists I would like for you too show me and then I'll tell you what I think. I just don't remember hearing about it =([/QUOTE]
Woosh for you, seriously you didn't get that.
ad hominem is a logical fallacy, I have every right to question you on it.
You want to go after me, but don't even know about the stimulus package!? WoW
As someone from Sweden already said, i mostly notice the conservative stand points... So i have no clue what you are talking about, again, maybe because i live in a more socialistish society...
As was pointed out liberal/conservatism depends on point of view, some things may be conservative to me that are not for someone else. Like, most americans seem conservative to me, even those that call themselves liberal...
Let me state what I said earlier again... That was HALF as a large as it should be according to theory. It should have been approx. 1.4 trillion dollars.
Of course Austerity is fine too. It's not like we have any historical or contemporary examples of austerity programs going to hell.
The newer the generation in US, the more liberal they are in my opinion. I am not really into politics or choosing sides or whatever, but that doesn't mean I'm entirely uneducated (although I'm no politics wiz) My friends and I seem to have a belief that when something is being done that is genuinely made to benefit EVERYONE and not make the rich richer and the poor more-so, it is a good thing.
The fact is, conservative America is not at all about accepting new ideas to make things better off for everyone. Conservatives want things as they have been. They seem to want to conserve old systems and laws, even if they are inefficient and outdated. Conservative politicians seem to be aiming at the older population, and not the new generation.
I'm going to throw "pro life" out there as an example. Of course no rational human wants babies to die, however, social dynamics are very different than they used to be. There are more people out there to compete for a mate, which leads to more sex before marriage or even dating. People have sex just to see if they have an emotional attachment, instead of doing it the other way around like it used to happen. Unfortunately, this is how babies are made. There are many women who get pregnant who didn't intend to, and cannot financially support a child. If she chooses to keep it, she will be in for a very stressful life. OR she can abort it, understand her mistake, and try to give a baby a good life later on in life.
Liberals say obviously do what you want and what you feel is right. Liberals want people to decide for themselves. I'm really down with that. I am not down with being told how to act and how I should think.
Of course no rational human wants babies to die, however, social dynamics are very different than they used to be
.
Yeah, but so called conservatives have trouble understanding that "killing babies" is a lot different from "not letting them be born".
I find that most conservative opinions stem from their fear of science and religious teachings which are often irrational and prohibit things that make no logical or economic sense.
On July 06 2010 01:49 HnR)hT wrote: [quote] I agree with you about Sam Harris. But trust me, there are a lot of conservatives at his level. You just need to look around more
I know there are a lot of conservatives at his level. Just significantly less than there are liberals. And both sides have idiots... My problem is that the right seems to have more idiots =P
Liberals have environmentalist nutjobs and a good amount of conspiracy theorists (though there are some "9/11 truthers" on the right)
Conservatives have racists, "fiscal irresponsibility" (a lot more so than liberals btw!!!), people who don't know what socialism means, Texas, people who are fine with the way military is handled and funded.
PS: I'm just kidding about Texas (sort of)
The current democratic congress is fiscally irresponsible, so trying to say its more then liberals is a very moot point, and actually the the contrary of a fiscal Conservatives.
I have seen my fair share of liberal racists, and the current and that comes to mind is planed parenthood.
And in my opinion the left has more idiots then the right. Moot points...
We both think each other's wrong which is quite normal. But I'll say that conservatives are a lot less fiscally responsible =P... And it's quite obvious that the current government's been handed a messed up country but at least he's not lowering taxes like a berserker.
Quit with the =P its not cute anymore. It also underlines what your aiming at.
You cannot generally say Conservatives are fiscally irresponsible, you just cannot because by the very definition of a fiscal Conservative is being responsible. How badly is up to you.
And the current Government made it INCREDIBLY WORSE. It's his problem now, and he's not helping the situation by saying it's still Bushes fault. Question, is a 8 trillion dollar bill helping? Simple answer no.
Actually, it would be good to lower taxes so the common folk can get some money.
On July 06 2010 02:07 Mothxal wrote:
I'm not saying that conservatism = irresponsibility and liberalism = responsibility
Lately, the conservative parties have been EXCEPTIONALLY BAD at handling the money - or so it seems to me.
Like I said before with the =P, it hints that was what your trying to say.
This is exactly what I was going to say about the Republican party. You must do note that politicians are an issue when talking about ideology. Point is they really shouldn't be used as a prime example.
No cute tongues then....
You know nothing about economics. Go home =(
Wow, such a comeback, care to provide evidence or are you just going to mud sling because you underwear got twisted?
Guess I'm not as smart as a liberal....
Mothxal,
My mistake, you should know who that was aimed at.
Excuse me, evidence? You didn't provide any. I can just push you away with the back of my hand. You don't have any grounds to tell me I need evidence. If you told me you saw a unicorn I'd tell you to get back in your cage.
Excuse me sir,
This little thing has been quite peaceful.
When did you get so ruffled to personally attack somebody? You want to say I have no economics and say I should go home (not to mention I writing on the internet really doesn't make sense).
I do so have grounds to question you when you go after me personally. I don't know what qualifies you have more voice then I do, so all I'm seeing is tantamount to anger over a moot point.
And If somebody told me a 8 trillion dollar bill is helping our economy I would say the same thing (this really should be obvious sarcasm).
Oh its not like you provided any evidence, so I don't know what high ground you try to put yourself on, but you forget theres no advantage. OH do remember this is the conversation between you and me, so don't go further then that.
I really don't know what made you go off the wall, but I guess it was bound to happen to somebody.
Anyways,
the 8 trillion dollars has NOT helped at all, it was a pet project to get things they wanted passed and that was all it was. That's not pulling out all the bull that it was in it for democratic pet projects.
Most economists agree that the bailout was a necessary function in order to keep the economy alive whatsoever, both from the right and left. Though, i'm sure there is disagreement between the execution and details of said bill, the bill itself was necessary.
This is blatantly false, very few economists agreed that the bailout was necessary. Almost all economists agrees that the bailout was money down the tubes. Pretty much only keynesians supported this godawful bailout, and keynesians are retarded.
On July 06 2010 03:13 phosphorylation wrote: eh liberals think they are smart.. and sheepishly choose what "feels right" or feels intuititive i would know, i used to be one once
edit: plus some genuinely retarded right wing rednecks give conservatives a bad name
<baseless comment><anecdotal "evidence" to support baseless comment><self affirmation>
<baseless comment #2>
I think too many people from all sides are getting a bit Aegrean in this thread, and should probably slow down.
On July 06 2010 02:07 Mothxal wrote: @ixi.genocide, you're not the first conservative to worship at the altar of "realpolitik" and think that he's not ruled by ideology, unlike the rest. You'll actually find most of the facts in your post are completely wrong (universal healthcare wouldn't be more expensive, USA : Russia population is 1:2, not 1:3, there is a correlation between IQ and liberalism ) not to mention your invention of "real Tea-Party members", or your ridiculous generalization of why people vote for party X.
I may not be the first person to "Worship the altar of Realpolitik but that doesn't mean I'm wrong or that I need to change my viewpoint.
universal healthcare wouldn't be more expensive- Yes it would, the easiest reason I can give that most people will know is tuition costs. The cost of going to school has increased over the years (more than inflation) and one of the main reasons for the increase in tuition is there are more grants and loans available to students now. The same thing can and will happen to the health care system, not only do most people and most companies view the American government as a bottomless pit of money, the US government spends in the same fashion. Medicare was supposed to cost $12 billion by 1990 and was actually $107 billion.... if you don't think the same thing is going to happen to health care you are sorely mistaken
Russia population is 106 million; America population 308 million.
The only correlation between IQ and liberalism is the same as the correlation of IQ to people that live in cities and/or in a metropolis. After you reach the point of average IQ there is no difference between liberals and conservatives. Furthermore while you are saying everything I'm posting is incorrect, I would like to see where you get your information.
What I meant by "real" tea party members was the people that are knowledgeable about government politics, not the racists and ignorant people that crowd the cameras at their events.
Your last comment doesn't deserve a proper rebuttal because you didn't have something to disprove.
Edit: I looked up Russia's population on wiki and that says 145 million. I'm not sure which is correct so I made this edit.
Conservatives tend to be Christians, and as a rule of thumb I don't trust Christians, or religious people (and in turn they're always conservative in some sense) to handle anything that's important to me. I make it a point to ask if my financial advisor is religious, for instance. So do I make it a point that if I go to a specialist doctor for surgery, more often than not, I try to go to one who isn't religious.
Why? Because I can't bring myself to let someone tell me that he believes in ridiculous things like how there's this invincible, invisible, all-powerful guy in the sky who loves him, and twisted the pagan ritual of blood sacrifice into some kind of a perversely good thing, then tell me that they can be lucid enough to manage my money. Why should I trust someone whose probable first step of action in crisis is to pray to a divine being that doesn't exist and is incapable of direct intervention? Should I let my financial advisor close his eyes, pray to God and choose a hedge fund at random because 'God told me so'? Should I have a peace of mind that my surgeon won't go "Oh God oh God help me" when he screws up instead of doing something productive?
To borrow a classification from Freud, conservatives to me are like children (since the massive lot of them tend to be religious in some way). Religious people are still in their child-like state who need some kind of supernatural validation of their selves and weakly, and meekly validate their "opinions" dished out by their pastors and constantly urged to quote the Bible like it's some kind of 'universal truth'. Why? Because God induced this heavy dependence on Christians and made it impossible for them to be weaned away from their weakness.
"You will never pray again, never adore again, never again rest in endless trust; you refuse to let yourself stop to unharness your thoughts before any ultimate wisdom, goodness or power; you have no perpetual guard and friend for your seven solitudes; you live without the view of a mountain-range with snow-capped peaks and fire in its heart; there is no avenger for you anymore, no final corrector of the text of your life; there is no more reason in what happens, no love in what will happen to you; no more resting place stands open for your heart in which to find and no longer seek.."
The Gay Science by Nietzsche, in the portion named Excelsior.
This much the Christian God has imposed himself upon his followers, and they're so dependent, they know nothing else. Like the sheep that Jesus favors, they remain stupid, want to remain stupid, and rejoice in being called stupid by their betters because Jesus liked his followers to be sheep.
On July 06 2010 03:31 NEWater wrote: Conservatives tend to be Christians, and as a rule of thumb I don't trust Christians, or religious people (and in turn they're always conservative in some sense) to handle anything that's important to me. I make it a point to ask if my financial advisor is religious, for instance. So do I make it a point that if I go to a specialist doctor for surgery, more often than not, I try to go to one who isn't religious.
Why? Because I can't bring myself to let someone tell me that he believes in ridiculous things like how there's this invincible, invisible, all-powerful guy in the sky who loves him, and twisted the pagan ritual of blood sacrifice into some kind of a perversely good thing, then tell me that they can be lucid enough to manage my money. Why should I trust someone whose probable first step of action in crisis is to pray to a divine being that doesn't exist and is incapable of direct intervention? Should I let my financial advisor close his eyes, pray to God and choose a hedge fund at random because 'God told me so'? Should I have a peace of mind that my surgeon won't go "Oh God oh God help me" when he screws up instead of doing something productive?
To borrow a classification from Freud, conservatives to me are like children (since the massive lot of them tend to be religious in some way). Religious people are still in their child-like state who need some kind of supernatural validation of their selves and weakly, and meekly validate their "opinions" dished out by their pastors and constantly urged to quote the Bible like it's some kind of 'universal truth'. Why? Because God induced this heavy dependence on Christians and made it impossible for them to be weaned away from their weakness.
"You will never pray again, never adore again, never again rest in endless trust; you refuse to let yourself stop to unharness your thoughts before any ultimate wisdom, goodness or power; you have no perpetual guard and friend for your seven solitudes; you live without the view of a mountain-range with snow-capped peaks and fire in its heart; there is no avenger for you anymore, no final corrector of the text of your life; there is no more reason in what happens, no love in what will happen to you; no more resting place stands open for your heart in which to find and no longer seek.."
The Gay Science by Nietzsche, in the portion named Excelsior.
This much the Christian God has imposed himself upon his followers, and they're so dependent, they know nothing else. Like the sheep that Jesus favors, they remain stupid, want to remain stupid, and rejoice in being called stupid by their betters because Jesus liked his followers to be sheep.
Liberalism (from the Latin liberalis, "of freedom"[1]) is the belief in the importance of liberty and equality.[2][3] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but most liberals support such fundamental ideas as constitutions, liberal democracy, free and fair elections, human rights, capitalism, free trade, and the separation of church and state. These ideas are widely accepted, even by political groups that do not openly profess a liberal ideological orientation. Liberalism encompasses several intellectual trends and traditions, but the dominant variants are classical liberalism, which became popular in the 18th century, and social liberalism, which became popular in the 20th century.
Conservatism (Latin: conservare, "to preserve")[1] is a political and social philosophy that promotes the maintenance of traditional institutions and opposes rapid change in society. Some conservatives seek to preserve things as they are, emphasizing stability and continuity, while others oppose modernism and seek a return to "the way things were."[2][3] The first established use of the term in a political context was by François-René de Chateaubriand in 1819, following the French Revolution.[4] The term has since been used to describe a wide range of views. According to Hailsham, a former chairman of the British Conservative Party, "Conservatism is not so much a philosophy as an attitude, a constant force, performing a timeless function in the development of a free society, and corresponding to a deep and permanent requirement of human nature itself".[5]
English Conservatism - Edmund Burke was the private secretary to the Marquis of Rockingham and official pamphlateer to the Rockingham branch of the Whig Party.[13] Together with the Tories, they were the conservatives in the late 18th century United Kingdom.[14] Burke's views were a mixture of liberal and conservative. He supported the American Revolution but abhored the violence of the French Revolution. He accepted the liberal ideals of private property and the economics of Adam Smith, but thought that economics should be kept subordinate to the conservative social ethic, that capitalism should be subordinate to the medieval social tradition and that the business class should be subordinate to aristocracy.[15] He insisted on standards of honor derived from the medieval aristocratic tradition, and saw the aristocracy as the nation's natural leaders.[16] That meant limits on the powers of the Crown, since he found the institutions of Parliament to be better informed than commissions appointed by the executive.[17] He favored an established church, but allowed for a degree of religious toleration.[18] Burke justified the social order on the basis of tradition: tradition represented the wisdom of the species and he valued community and social harmony over social reforms.[19]
French Conservatism - Another form of conservatism developed in France in parallel to conservatism in Britain. It was influenced by Counter-Enlightenment works by men such as Joseph de Maistre and Louis de Bonald. French conservatism was less pragmatic and more reactionary than the conservatism of Burke. De Maistre argued for the restoration of hereditary monarchy, which he regarded as a divinely sanctioned institution, and for the indirect authority of the Pope over temporal matters. He also defended the principle of hierarchical authority, which the Revolution sought to destroy. In 1819 Maistre published his masterpiece Du Pape ("On the Pope"). The work is divided into four parts. In the first he argues that, in the Church, the pope is sovereign, and that it is an essential characteristic of all sovereign power that its decisions should be subject to no appeal. Consequently, the pope is infallible in his teaching, since it is by his teaching that he exercises his sovereignty. In the remaining divisions the author examines the relations of the pope and the temporal powers, civilization and the welfare of nations, and the schismatic Churches. He argues that nations require protection against abuses of power by a sovereignty superior to all others, and that this sovereignty should be that of the papacy, the historical saviour and maker of European civilization. Bonald advocated similar views but believe in giving more power to the monarchy than the church. Eventually conservatives added patriotism and nationalism to the list of traditional values they support. German conservatives were the first to embrace nationalism, which was previously associated with liberalism and the Revolution in France.
Realism, also known as political realism (see also Realpolitik), is a school of international relations that prioritizes national interest and security over ideology, moral concerns and social reconstructions. This term is often synonymous with power politics. Realist theories share the following key assumptions: The international system is in a constant state of anarchy. There is no actor above states capable of regulating their interactions; states must arrive at relations with other states on their own, rather than it being dictated to them by some higher controlling entity. In pursuit of national security, states strive to attain as many resources as possible. States are rational unitary actors each moving towards their own national interest. There is a general distrust of long-term cooperation or alliance. The overriding 'national interest' of each state is its national security and survival. Relations between states are determined by their levels of power derived primarily from their military and economic capabilities. The interjection of morality and values into international relations causes reckless commitments, diplomatic rigidity, and the escalation of conflict. Sovereign states are the principal actors in the international system and special attention is afforded to large powers as they have the most influence on the international stage. International institutions, non-governmental organizations, multinational corporations, individuals and other sub-state or trans-state actors are viewed as having little independent influence. In summary, realists believe that mankind is not inherently benevolent but rather self-centered and competitive. This perspective, which is shared by theorists such as Thomas Hobbes, views human nature as egocentric (not necessarily selfish) and conflictual unless given the right conditions under which they can coexist, contrasts with the approach of liberalism to international relations. Further, they believe that states are inherently aggressive (offensive realism) and/or obsessed with security (defensive realism); and that territorial expansion is only constrained by opposing power(s). This aggressive build-up, however, leads to a security dilemma where increasing one's security can bring along even greater instability as the opponent(s) builds up its own arms in response. Thus, security becomes a zero-sum game where only relative gains can be made. There are no universal principles which all states can use to guide their actions. Instead, a state must always be aware of the actions of the states around it and must use a pragmatic approach to resolve the problems that arise.
Neorealism shuns classical realism's use of often essentialist concepts such as "human nature" to explain international politics. Instead, neorealist thinkers developed a theory that privileges structural constraints over agents' strategies and motivations. Neorealism holds that the international structure is defined by its ordering principle, which is anarchy, and by the distribution of capabilities, measured by the number of great powers within the international system. The anarchic ordering principle of the international structure is decentralized, having no formal central authority, and is composed of formally equal sovereign states. These states act according to the logic of self-help--states seek their own interest and will not subordinate their interest to another's. States are assumed at a minimum to want to ensure their own survival as this is a prerequisite to pursue other goals. This driving force of survival is the primary factor influencing their behavior and in turn ensures states develop offensive military capabilities, for foreign interventionism and as a means to increase their relative power. Because states can never be certain of other states' future intentions, there is a lack of trust between states which requires them to be on guard against relative losses of power which could enable other states to threaten their survival. This lack of trust, based on uncertainty, is called the security dilemma. States are deemed similar in terms of needs but not in capabilities for achieving them. The positional placement of states in terms of abilities determines the distribution of capabilities. The structural distribution of capabilities then limits cooperation among states through fears of relative gains made by other states, and the possibility of dependence on other states. The desire and relative abilities of each state to maximize relative power constrain each other, resulting in a 'balance of power', which shapes international relations. It also gives rise to the 'security dilemma' that all nations face. There are two ways in which states balance power: internal balancing and external balancing. Internal balancing occurs as states grow their own capabilities by increasing economic growth and/or increasing military spending. External balancing occurs as states enter into alliances to check the power of more powerful states or alliances.
Party Institutionalism is an approach that sees political parties as having some capacities for adaptation, but also sees them as being "prisoners of their own history as an institution". Aspects of the ideology that a party had when it was founded, persists even though the conditions and the party-base in society have changed. Scholars of this approach claim that the party's history determines how the party adapts to modern day challenges. The left – right is still central in order to understand a party's policy, but the core of these theories is to compare the party's beliefs and values today with the ones at their founding. In analyzing a party's ideological orientation we must begin by analyzing the very origin of the party. The most useful framework within this tradition is offered by von Beyme who identifies nine party- groups, or "familles spirituelles", that can be found in European liberal democracies today: Liberal and Radical parties Conservative parties Socialist and Social Democratic parties Christian Democratic parties Communist parties Agrarian parties Regional and ethnic parties Right-wing extremist parties Ecology movement Von Beyme claims that at the time of their founding these parties reflected the needs to defend particular kind of interests, but recognized that not every European party could be fitted into this schema. He has been criticized of being tempted to try to fit too many parties into this schema, when in reality there is not grounds for doing so. It needs to be said as well that quite many of the European parties classified into the categories above are regarded as having more or less lost contact with their original "famille spirituelle".
Anything else people need explained before they misuse something? Positivism? IPE? Democracy? Republicanism?
On July 06 2010 03:31 NEWater wrote: Conservatives tend to be Christians, and as a rule of thumb I don't trust Christians, or religious people (and in turn they're always conservative in some sense) to handle anything that's important to me. I make it a point to ask if my financial advisor is religious, for instance. So do I make it a point that if I go to a specialist doctor for surgery, more often than not, I try to go to one who isn't religious.
Why? Because I can't bring myself to let someone tell me that he believes in ridiculous things like how there's this invincible, invisible, all-powerful guy in the sky who loves him, and twisted the pagan ritual of blood sacrifice into some kind of a perversely good thing, then tell me that they can be lucid enough to manage my money. Why should I trust someone whose probable first step of action in crisis is to pray to a divine being that doesn't exist and is incapable of direct intervention? Should I let my financial advisor close his eyes, pray to God and choose a hedge fund at random because 'God told me so'? Should I have a peace of mind that my surgeon won't go "Oh God oh God help me" when he screws up instead of doing something productive?
To borrow a classification from Freud, conservatives to me are like children (since the massive lot of them tend to be religious in some way). Religious people are still in their child-like state who need some kind of supernatural validation of their selves and weakly, and meekly validate their "opinions" dished out by their pastors and constantly urged to quote the Bible like it's some kind of 'universal truth'. Why? Because God induced this heavy dependence on Christians and made it impossible for them to be weaned away from their weakness.
"You will never pray again, never adore again, never again rest in endless trust; you refuse to let yourself stop to unharness your thoughts before any ultimate wisdom, goodness or power; you have no perpetual guard and friend for your seven solitudes; you live without the view of a mountain-range with snow-capped peaks and fire in its heart; there is no avenger for you anymore, no final corrector of the text of your life; there is no more reason in what happens, no love in what will happen to you; no more resting place stands open for your heart in which to find and no longer seek.."
The Gay Science by Nietzsche, in the portion named Excelsior.
This much the Christian God has imposed himself upon his followers, and they're so dependent, they know nothing else. Like the sheep that Jesus favors, they remain stupid, want to remain stupid, and rejoice in being called stupid by their betters because Jesus liked his followers to be sheep.
probably the most irrelevant post in this thread
For real. A diatribe of religious hate that shows he's no better than any religious fundamentalist.
What I'd like is someone with conservative economic theory but a liberal view on individual rights. In America it doesn't seem like that's possible right now.
On July 06 2010 03:06 larjarse wrote: The newer the generation in US, the more liberal they are in my opinion. I am not really into politics or choosing sides or whatever, but that doesn't mean I'm entirely uneducated (although I'm no politics wiz) My friends and I seem to have a belief that when something is being done that is genuinely made to benefit EVERYONE and not make the rich richer and the poor more-so, it is a good thing.
The fact is, conservative America is not at all about accepting new ideas to make things better off for everyone. Conservatives want things as they have been. They seem to want to conserve old systems and laws, even if they are inefficient and outdated. Conservative politicians seem to be aiming at the older population, and not the new generation.
I'm going to throw "pro life" out there as an example. Of course no rational human wants babies to die, however, social dynamics are very different than they used to be. There are more people out there to compete for a mate, which leads to more sex before marriage or even dating. People have sex just to see if they have an emotional attachment, instead of doing it the other way around like it used to happen. Unfortunately, this is how babies are made. There are many women who get pregnant who didn't intend to, and cannot financially support a child. If she chooses to keep it, she will be in for a very stressful life. OR she can abort it, understand her mistake, and try to give a baby a good life later on in life.
Liberals say obviously do what you want and what you feel is right. Liberals want people to decide for themselves. I'm really down with that. I am not down with being told how to act and how I should think.
While the wording Conservative does back up your opinion on conservatives that is not the case for me and my friends. As a conservative I want the national government small and meek. The only things it should really do is census, military, elections (represent U.S) and in some rare cases mediate. This means Low Taxes, separation of government and private sectors and to be fiscally responsible. It's not a matter of "Going Back" it's matter of staying right.
Pro-life is a bad joke a few decades late. In a modern society where everything is taken care of and humans aren't subjugated to the same town and people for their entire life there is no reason for old morals and habits. I wouldn't even argue the fact that there are more people to compete for a mate as much as there are less consequences to having sex (and it's fun). I agree with what you are saying, I would rather have a kid grow up in a good home and become successful than to be raised in a bad home because their mom was having fun one night.
I think that most people have your view on liberals vs conservative and instead it should be Common sense vs Religious fanatics. I don't care what you do or where you do it as long as it doesn't negatively effect other people. I don't like being told what to do and that is what a bigger government is (your pseudo-parents).
Of course no rational human wants babies to die, however, social dynamics are very different than they used to be
.
Yeah, but so called conservatives have trouble understanding that "killing babies" is a lot different from "not letting them be born".
I find that most conservative opinions stem from their fear of science and religious teachings which are often irrational and prohibit things that make no logical or economic sense.
That's the person, not the political group, it's just sad that they are often the same thing now
On July 06 2010 01:57 Djzapz wrote: [quote] I know there are a lot of conservatives at his level. Just significantly less than there are liberals. And both sides have idiots... My problem is that the right seems to have more idiots =P
Liberals have environmentalist nutjobs and a good amount of conspiracy theorists (though there are some "9/11 truthers" on the right)
Conservatives have racists, "fiscal irresponsibility" (a lot more so than liberals btw!!!), people who don't know what socialism means, Texas, people who are fine with the way military is handled and funded.
PS: I'm just kidding about Texas (sort of)
The current democratic congress is fiscally irresponsible, so trying to say its more then liberals is a very moot point, and actually the the contrary of a fiscal Conservatives.
I have seen my fair share of liberal racists, and the current and that comes to mind is planed parenthood.
And in my opinion the left has more idiots then the right. Moot points...
We both think each other's wrong which is quite normal. But I'll say that conservatives are a lot less fiscally responsible =P... And it's quite obvious that the current government's been handed a messed up country but at least he's not lowering taxes like a berserker.
Quit with the =P its not cute anymore. It also underlines what your aiming at.
You cannot generally say Conservatives are fiscally irresponsible, you just cannot because by the very definition of a fiscal Conservative is being responsible. How badly is up to you.
And the current Government made it INCREDIBLY WORSE. It's his problem now, and he's not helping the situation by saying it's still Bushes fault. Question, is a 8 trillion dollar bill helping? Simple answer no.
Actually, it would be good to lower taxes so the common folk can get some money.
On July 06 2010 02:07 Mothxal wrote:
I'm not saying that conservatism = irresponsibility and liberalism = responsibility
Lately, the conservative parties have been EXCEPTIONALLY BAD at handling the money - or so it seems to me.
Like I said before with the =P, it hints that was what your trying to say.
This is exactly what I was going to say about the Republican party. You must do note that politicians are an issue when talking about ideology. Point is they really shouldn't be used as a prime example.
No cute tongues then....
You know nothing about economics. Go home =(
Wow, such a comeback, care to provide evidence or are you just going to mud sling because you underwear got twisted?
Guess I'm not as smart as a liberal....
Mothxal,
My mistake, you should know who that was aimed at.
Excuse me, evidence? You didn't provide any. I can just push you away with the back of my hand. You don't have any grounds to tell me I need evidence. If you told me you saw a unicorn I'd tell you to get back in your cage.
Excuse me sir,
This little thing has been quite peaceful.
When did you get so ruffled to personally attack somebody? You want to say I have no economics and say I should go home (not to mention I writing on the internet really doesn't make sense).
I do so have grounds to question you when you go after me personally. I don't know what qualifies you have more voice then I do, so all I'm seeing is tantamount to anger over a moot point.
And If somebody told me a 8 trillion dollar bill is helping our economy I would say the same thing (this really should be obvious sarcasm).
Oh its not like you provided any evidence, so I don't know what high ground you try to put yourself on, but you forget theres no advantage. OH do remember this is the conversation between you and me, so don't go further then that.
I really don't know what made you go off the wall, but I guess it was bound to happen to somebody.
Anyways,
the 8 trillion dollars has NOT helped at all, it was a pet project to get things they wanted passed and that was all it was. That's not pulling out all the bull that it was in it for democratic pet projects.
Most economists agree that the bailout was a necessary function in order to keep the economy alive whatsoever, both from the right and left. Though, i'm sure there is disagreement between the execution and details of said bill, the bill itself was necessary.
This is blatantly false, very few economists agreed that the bailout was necessary. Almost all economists agrees that the bailout was money down the tubes. Pretty much only keynesians supported this godawful bailout, and keynesians are retarded.
You're confusing the bailout of the financial institutions with the stimulus package designed to ..stimulate the economy.
From your links: Reisman: That is a view held by a large school of economists, perhaps the majority school, for the last 60 years or so. That's the Keynesian school, but there are other economists, like the Austrian school, which holds a very different position. In their view, an essential requirement to a sound economy is balanced budgets with small government. We want government limited to protecting life and property. The government should be attacking terrorists, providing police protection against common criminals, and that should be essentially it, and the people in an environment free from terror will proceed to provide for themselves economically. That has been the basic philosophy on which the United States was built.
He's a libertarian, he'll always say that there needs to be less government. Note he still says the majority agrees with the stimulus.
Some of your other links are about how the stimulus wasn't enough, and that it failed to have enough impact. Nothing in your links actually disproves anything you claim it does, unless one agrees with your assumption that "Keynesians are retarded".
Cochrane got mauled by the Economist's economics blog quite savagely. Then Brad DeLong and Krugman joined in making a mockery of him.
Becker is one example though a slight qualification is that the macro-economy is not his research focus.
Mankiew... well meh mankiew.
Research wise, mainstream economists (see besides Chicago school) have documented the existance of a multiplier effect and its varying levels of effectiveness based on how the stimulus is injected into the economy. Obama in an attempt to be "moderate" made 1/3 of an already too small stimulus tax cuts. Tax cuts generate almost no multiplier effect.
Now we can talk about history: 1937. After years of steady improvement, the federal government begins severe austerity measures which plunge us back into a recession.
Hell why don't we look at Ireland today (smaller country but insane austerity measures).
Both are two clear, clear cut examples of austerity measures being absolutely insane. Hell there's no logical reason to care about the deficit in the immediate short term. Where's that cash going to go? Into stocks psh. There's no threat to the short or even long term US treasury at the present.
edit: Where the hell did you get very few? The case against fiscal stimulus is tantamount to the climate scientists who claim that there's no global warming. (well that's a slight exaggeration)
On July 06 2010 03:31 NEWater wrote: Conservatives tend to be Christians, and as a rule of thumb I don't trust Christians, or religious people (and in turn they're always conservative in some sense) to handle anything that's important to me. I make it a point to ask if my financial advisor is religious, for instance. So do I make it a point that if I go to a specialist doctor for surgery, more often than not, I try to go to one who isn't religious.
Why? Because I can't bring myself to let someone tell me that he believes in ridiculous things like how there's this invincible, invisible, all-powerful guy in the sky who loves him, and twisted the pagan ritual of blood sacrifice into some kind of a perversely good thing, then tell me that they can be lucid enough to manage my money. Why should I trust someone whose probable first step of action in crisis is to pray to a divine being that doesn't exist and is incapable of direct intervention? Should I let my financial advisor close his eyes, pray to God and choose a hedge fund at random because 'God told me so'? Should I have a peace of mind that my surgeon won't go "Oh God oh God help me" when he screws up instead of doing something productive?
To borrow a classification from Freud, conservatives to me are like children (since the massive lot of them tend to be religious in some way). Religious people are still in their child-like state who need some kind of supernatural validation of their selves and weakly, and meekly validate their "opinions" dished out by their pastors and constantly urged to quote the Bible like it's some kind of 'universal truth'. Why? Because God induced this heavy dependence on Christians and made it impossible for them to be weaned away from their weakness.
"You will never pray again, never adore again, never again rest in endless trust; you refuse to let yourself stop to unharness your thoughts before any ultimate wisdom, goodness or power; you have no perpetual guard and friend for your seven solitudes; you live without the view of a mountain-range with snow-capped peaks and fire in its heart; there is no avenger for you anymore, no final corrector of the text of your life; there is no more reason in what happens, no love in what will happen to you; no more resting place stands open for your heart in which to find and no longer seek.."
The Gay Science by Nietzsche, in the portion named Excelsior.
This much the Christian God has imposed himself upon his followers, and they're so dependent, they know nothing else. Like the sheep that Jesus favors, they remain stupid, want to remain stupid, and rejoice in being called stupid by their betters because Jesus liked his followers to be sheep.
Would it be weird to say that I love you? This is a great post that shows why people dislike conservatives.
Well, I'm glad this thread took off. I enjoyed some of the feedback.
And hats off to you guys who didn't assail each other. Politics are profoundly good at making people disagree.
My general conclusion: (As far as the question stated is concerned):
1. The United States has a unique bloc of Conservatives unseen elsewhere. 2. Because internet is global, and the political systems of Europe are more leftist (from my country's perspective), the European input adds to the liberalism and dwarfs the Conservative viewpoint. 3. ** The interesting one with the implications ** Younger people are somehow more liberal-minded.
IMO, any individual's evaluation of the internet will suffer from selection bias. You can only evaluate the liberalness of content posted in a language that you understand. Since the internet is global, there is content in many languages, and since you can understand it all, you will only have a limited perspective.
tl;dr: Conservatives are over-represented at the extreme ends of intelligence distributions, while Liberals are over-represented in the middle areas. The internet artificially selects a distribution that is biased away from the lower end of that distribution, thus resulting in an artificially high Liberal-to-Conservative ratio.
I would in fact argue the other way around when looking at voting statistics. People who vote liberal (in the U.S.) have a tendency to either not have a college degree (or even necessarily a high school diploma or equiv.) Or have the highest degrees available.
On July 06 2010 03:41 Myles wrote: What I'd like is someone with conservative economic theory but a liberal view on individual rights. In America it doesn't seem like that's possible right now.
On July 06 2010 03:41 Myles wrote: What I'd like is someone with conservative economic theory but a liberal view on individual rights. In America it doesn't seem like that's possible right now.
Like libertarians? I'm one of them.
I like to say I'm a libertarian in that I believe individual liberty to be extremely important if not the most important thing, but I think that currently liberals have economics down better than conservatives. Sure it's good to have taxes as low as possible and it would be nice to be efficient with them, but the fact is it's not always possible in many cases. Right now, lowering the taxes can't work. Lowering the taxes of the poor and the middle class would be a good idea but it would then be very important to increase the taxes of the rich (which is what we need to do now).
Many libertarians would argue for flat taxes which is an absurd system which simply doesn't lead to an efficient economy. More reasonable libertarians would argue that we need to keep taxation levels closer together, but right now we just shouldn't do that!
All ideologies have people who have it mostly right and other people who would completely destroy the US by mistake if they got their hands on some power.
On July 06 2010 03:41 Myles wrote: What I'd like is someone with conservative economic theory but a liberal view on individual rights. In America it doesn't seem like that's possible right now.
Like libertarians? I'm one of them.
Yea, but there's way too many kind of libertarians. You got nutso anarchist-libertarians and socialist-libertarians, then left and right and everything in between. Plus, I was talking more of in conventional politics. It seems like to get someone who wants small government they also have to pretty much be hardcore republican.
So many republicans want a small government but are perfectly fine with having a massive military (socialized "security"). I'm pretty sure those who call themselves libertarians, at the very least, don't have that contradiction.
On July 06 2010 03:41 Myles wrote: What I'd like is someone with conservative economic theory but a liberal view on individual rights. In America it doesn't seem like that's possible right now.
Like libertarians? I'm one of them.
Yea, but there's way too many kind of libertarians. You got nutso anarchist-libertarians and socialist-libertarians, then left and right and everything in between. Plus, I was talking more of in conventional politics. It seems like to get someone who wants small government they also have to pretty much be hardcore republican.
On July 06 2010 03:31 NEWater wrote: Conservatives tend to be Christians, and as a rule of thumb I don't trust Christians, or religious people (and in turn they're always conservative in some sense) to handle anything that's important to me. I make it a point to ask if my financial advisor is religious, for instance. So do I make it a point that if I go to a specialist doctor for surgery, more often than not, I try to go to one who isn't religious.
Why? Because I can't bring myself to let someone tell me that he believes in ridiculous things like how there's this invincible, invisible, all-powerful guy in the sky who loves him, and twisted the pagan ritual of blood sacrifice into some kind of a perversely good thing, then tell me that they can be lucid enough to manage my money. Why should I trust someone whose probable first step of action in crisis is to pray to a divine being that doesn't exist and is incapable of direct intervention? Should I let my financial advisor close his eyes, pray to God and choose a hedge fund at random because 'God told me so'? Should I have a peace of mind that my surgeon won't go "Oh God oh God help me" when he screws up instead of doing something productive?
To borrow a classification from Freud, conservatives to me are like children (since the massive lot of them tend to be religious in some way). Religious people are still in their child-like state who need some kind of supernatural validation of their selves and weakly, and meekly validate their "opinions" dished out by their pastors and constantly urged to quote the Bible like it's some kind of 'universal truth'. Why? Because God induced this heavy dependence on Christians and made it impossible for them to be weaned away from their weakness.
"You will never pray again, never adore again, never again rest in endless trust; you refuse to let yourself stop to unharness your thoughts before any ultimate wisdom, goodness or power; you have no perpetual guard and friend for your seven solitudes; you live without the view of a mountain-range with snow-capped peaks and fire in its heart; there is no avenger for you anymore, no final corrector of the text of your life; there is no more reason in what happens, no love in what will happen to you; no more resting place stands open for your heart in which to find and no longer seek.."
The Gay Science by Nietzsche, in the portion named Excelsior.
This much the Christian God has imposed himself upon his followers, and they're so dependent, they know nothing else. Like the sheep that Jesus favors, they remain stupid, want to remain stupid, and rejoice in being called stupid by their betters because Jesus liked his followers to be sheep.
Would it be weird to say that I love you? This is a great post that shows why people dislike conservatives.
I hope you are joking.
I am a liberal and also non religious but all that post does is hate on religion. People have every right to believe in whatever they want. They also have every right to not believe in anything. This does not make anyone greater or less.
On July 06 2010 03:41 Myles wrote: What I'd like is someone with conservative economic theory but a liberal view on individual rights. In America it doesn't seem like that's possible right now.
Like libertarians? I'm one of them.
Yea, but there's way too many kind of libertarians. You got nutso anarchist-libertarians and socialist-libertarians, then left and right and everything in between. Plus, I was talking more of in conventional politics. It seems like to get someone who wants small government they also have to pretty much be hardcore republican.
On July 06 2010 03:31 NEWater wrote: Conservatives tend to be Christians, and as a rule of thumb I don't trust Christians, or religious people (and in turn they're always conservative in some sense) to handle anything that's important to me. I make it a point to ask if my financial advisor is religious, for instance. So do I make it a point that if I go to a specialist doctor for surgery, more often than not, I try to go to one who isn't religious.
Why? Because I can't bring myself to let someone tell me that he believes in ridiculous things like how there's this invincible, invisible, all-powerful guy in the sky who loves him, and twisted the pagan ritual of blood sacrifice into some kind of a perversely good thing, then tell me that they can be lucid enough to manage my money. Why should I trust someone whose probable first step of action in crisis is to pray to a divine being that doesn't exist and is incapable of direct intervention? Should I let my financial advisor close his eyes, pray to God and choose a hedge fund at random because 'God told me so'? Should I have a peace of mind that my surgeon won't go "Oh God oh God help me" when he screws up instead of doing something productive?
To borrow a classification from Freud, conservatives to me are like children (since the massive lot of them tend to be religious in some way). Religious people are still in their child-like state who need some kind of supernatural validation of their selves and weakly, and meekly validate their "opinions" dished out by their pastors and constantly urged to quote the Bible like it's some kind of 'universal truth'. Why? Because God induced this heavy dependence on Christians and made it impossible for them to be weaned away from their weakness.
"You will never pray again, never adore again, never again rest in endless trust; you refuse to let yourself stop to unharness your thoughts before any ultimate wisdom, goodness or power; you have no perpetual guard and friend for your seven solitudes; you live without the view of a mountain-range with snow-capped peaks and fire in its heart; there is no avenger for you anymore, no final corrector of the text of your life; there is no more reason in what happens, no love in what will happen to you; no more resting place stands open for your heart in which to find and no longer seek.."
The Gay Science by Nietzsche, in the portion named Excelsior.
This much the Christian God has imposed himself upon his followers, and they're so dependent, they know nothing else. Like the sheep that Jesus favors, they remain stupid, want to remain stupid, and rejoice in being called stupid by their betters because Jesus liked his followers to be sheep.
Would it be weird to say that I love you? This is a great post that shows why people dislike conservatives.
I hope you are joking.
I am a liberal and also non religious but all that post does is hate on religion. People have every right to believe in whatever they want. They also have every right to not believe in anything. This does not make anyone greater or less.
No in itself it doesn't make the person greater or less - I'm not religious but I really hate the behavior of many religious people when they do stupid stuff BASED on their religion such as print "in god we trust" on money despite the constitution and bomb abortion clinics and such. My gf believes in God (sort of) but she never thought about making a "day of prayer to stop the oil spill" and such.
The belief itself is fine... Weird but fine... But it can make people think less - it can make them manipulable. It has quite a few downsides. Naturally there are a lot of religious people who are perfectly fine but there are many who hinder science and are kind of a problem all around to modern society.
On July 06 2010 03:41 Myles wrote: What I'd like is someone with conservative economic theory but a liberal view on individual rights. In America it doesn't seem like that's possible right now.
Like libertarians? I'm one of them.
Yea, but there's way too many kind of libertarians. You got nutso anarchist-libertarians and socialist-libertarians, then left and right and everything in between. Plus, I was talking more of in conventional politics. It seems like to get someone who wants small government they also have to pretty much be hardcore republican.
Libertarian by (political) definition means (generally) that they support personal freedoms and economic freedoms. By contrast, liberals tend to support personal freedoms, and conservatives economic freedoms.
Saying there are too many kinds of libertarians is tantamount to saying there are too many kinds of liberals (Eco, fem rights, etc etc.) or too many kinds of conservatives (religious, etc etc) In each affiliation there are going to be different blocs that make up that affiliation and are a person's primary reason for being affiliated with that group.
Of course no rational human wants babies to die, however, social dynamics are very different than they used to be
.
Yeah, but so called conservatives have trouble understanding that "killing babies" is a lot different from "not letting them be born".
I find that most conservative opinions stem from their fear of science and religious teachings which are often irrational and prohibit things that make no logical or economic sense.
That's the person, not the political group, it's just sad that they are often the same thing now
Obviously if I were seriously debating an issue, we would have to first agree on definitions. What is a conservative/liberal, etc. The problem in debating is that vague ideologies mean completely different things in the minds of different people. Or maybe they have no fucking clue what they mean, but want to argue anyway.
Which is why I tend not to involve myself in debates like these, because unless you can filter the idiots out (which you can't on the internet), the debate will always spiral down to the smallest common denominator.
On July 05 2010 19:19 ActualSteve wrote: (I saw the thread from 2008; new administration, different players on the web ... this topic should be brought up to date.)
Seems like every time I watch a YouTube video about politics, I read the comments. Almost every time I read the comments, I see the conservative standpoint in the minority. Almost every time said standpoint is stated, 10+ people with opposing viewpoints jump at the opportunity of ridiculing the right.
Possible questions for you:: Do you think the internet has a liberal bias? Why? What implications does this have for our future? (Unnecessary, but I'll include it: Are TL users generally liberal?)
1. Please don't go Aegrean and mind fuck us all.
2. Say something insightful.
I'm HOPING someone who is conservative makes a stand here and everyone is mature about it. I'm also hoping that this can pass as a thread and not necessarily a blog. Apologize in advance if I'm mistaken... it's been awhile.
Disclaimer: You're going to get about 2 paragraphs into this and think I'm a liberal just taking an opportunity to troll, but I assure you, I am not.
Short Answer: The internet artificially selects for a liberally biased population.
Long Answer:
1. We can safely assume that people who do not own computers are at the very least significantly less likely to be denizens of this hive of scum and villainy (HA HA, THE INTERNETS) than those people who do own computers.
2. Computers and the Internet are vaguely selective in that most of the reasons one would purchase one, appeal more strongly to those who are more intelligent. Video games are arguably "harder" to enjoy than, say TV is (let alone whatever it is your stereotypical rednecks are doing).
3. Thus, the Internet has already selected for a population that is skewed somewhat above the average as far as intelligence goes. Moreover, the majority of those people who are exceptions to this rule (most of the people who comment on Youtube, for instance) are likely to take the more common viewpoint among their peers, which on the internet is already being liberal.
Now, this appears to be me claiming that intelligence correlates positively with "liberal-ness" - and this is true, that is my belief, but only up to a point. To explain this, lets reverse the issue:
Liberal positions (using the modern understanding of the term) are, I think, generally characterized by a belief that the end result of conservative policies is unfair, or unjust. Marx rails against the exploitation of the proletariat, the Democrats seek openly to redistribute wealth, they seek to universalize healthcare coverage, and so forth. They are, in essence, trying to help other people.
This is, really, quite easy to support, on the face of it. Who doesn't want to help people? Who, really, is going to admit that they're perfectly happy with people dying from a curable illness because they cant afford treatment*?
I'm making an assumption here that with increasing intelligence comes increasing empathy, which is tenuous, to be sure - but certainly as intelligence increases the capacity we have for worrying about issues which are not of direct importance to our own well being increases.
Now, lets look at the result of, say, arguments against universal health care. It is an unavoidable fact that if you oppose universalized health care you must accept that some people will die when they could, perhaps, have lived with a universal system. This immediately puts conservatives in a fairly sticky position as far as arguments go. It is quite difficult to reconcile this kind of end-result with a concern for society - which is essentially what politics is, an argument over how best to serve society.
It takes a great deal of intellectual fortitude to take a long, hard, unbiased look at the arguments for both sides, and moreover it takes an intellect that has passed through the phase of believing every death is a tragedy that should be prevented at all costs. Such an intellect is, I would argue, more likely to side with conservatives than not, but that particular argument has nothing to do with answering your question. People capable of this kind of cold, logical, and prolonged thinking about very inflammatory issues are few and far between.
tl;dr: Conservatives are over-represented at the extreme ends of intelligence distributions, while Liberals are over-represented in the middle areas. The internet artificially selects a distribution that is biased away from the lower end of that distribution, thus resulting in an artificially high Liberal-to-Conservative ratio.
*Well, I am.
Having written that, I could posit another 3 possibilities for the appearance or fact of a liberal bias on the internet, but I think this one is sufficiently likely to degenerate into flames.
Disclaimer: Conservative
I think that most people on the internet are liberal because they are young and ignorant. It is easy to believe in change and helping out our fellow man when the truth is being hidden by a million veils. While I would love to see free health care the cost of this will drive U.S into the ground.
Now I realize that this is an international site and that there are many countries in Europe that have been able to implement some variant of health care and other liberal social programs but with >300 million people it isn't plausible to cover that many people, especially when there are 3x as many U.S citizens as there is in Russia (The largest population in Europe).
You spoke of how their is a correlation between intelligence and your standpoint on government and that is true. At the bottom of the group you have republican rednecks that want to protect their guns and their property (or what have you) and feel that uncle sam is an evil conglomerate (they probably don't know what that means either) that is out to control them. Then you have the average person that looks at Democratic nominees and how they are trying to help the common man (they are smooth talkers, I'll give them that). After those two groups you get to people that aren't ignorant; By that I mean you get to people that can form an opinion that is more than "I heard nancy say she wanted to help my family so I voted for her". From here you have the leaders and true members of the "Tea party" movement and you have upper middle class that actually follow politics.
After these groups you get to people that pay attention to the details. The people that pay attention to the details skew to the conservative favor because they know that at our current rate of spending we will owe china more than our country is worth in 20 years! (plus other hidden truths) Balancing the budget is being hidden behind the sick children that "Can't receive health care" (that's a lie). The reason why I keep bringing up health care in a "Is the internet liberal" thread is because that is the most widely debated American topic in the last year.
More of a sidenote than part of the actual argument, Getting free health care is not as much of a daunting task as the popular news stations would like you to think it is (especially for children and elders). There is no evil executive letting Aunt betty die of cancer that she could be cured of. Now that being said I think something could and should be done for health care and that isn't a government intrusion into the private sector and it certainly isn't mandatory health care.
What I propose is similar to a tax write off. An easy way to take care of your fellow man AND pay less money to the government (conservatives are having wet dreams about it). Every year about 60% of the American population have to pay some amount of taxes (40% don't have to pay or get money back) but what I propose is having the option to donate to a "Greater Society" charity group ran by independent companies and use the documentation of your charity donations to reduce your taxes by that amount.
Say you made 100,000 a year and paid 12,000 in taxes every april, With this plan you could donate 7,000 to charity and take 8,000 off your taxes (giving a big incentive to give to charity and cutting the governments spending money by upwards of 2/3rds. This is off topic so I am not going to go through all the details I have laid out for this but at 1/3rd of a budget (from april) and shutting down the government programs that aren't needed we can limit the size of government (tbh the only thing our government does right is find ways to botch the constitution) and put all of the charity money to the needy.
Of course no rational human wants babies to die, however, social dynamics are very different than they used to be
.
Yeah, but so called conservatives have trouble understanding that "killing babies" is a lot different from "not letting them be born".
I find that most conservative opinions stem from their fear of science and religious teachings which are often irrational and prohibit things that make no logical or economic sense.
That's the person, not the political group, it's just sad that they are often the same thing now
Obviously if I were seriously debating an issue, we would have to first agree on definitions. What is a conservative/liberal, etc. The problem in debating is that vague ideologies mean completely different things in the minds of different people. Or maybe they have no fucking clue what they mean, but want to argue anyway.
Which is why I tend not to involve myself in debates like these, because unless you can filter the idiots out (which you can't on the internet), the debate will always spiral down to the smallest common denominator.
also because we are on the internet it is harder to fully comprehend where the other persons view points are. From my posts you probably think that I am in my 30-40's (maybe more) and that I'm a strict republican but I'm 20 and don't have any loyalties to government or religion. It's all about perception of reality and that perception is different for every person. Whether you gained your thought patterns from your parents or your teachers or the books you read, it's different from everyone else.
On July 05 2010 19:19 ActualSteve wrote: (I saw the thread from 2008; new administration, different players on the web ... this topic should be brought up to date.)
Seems like every time I watch a YouTube video about politics, I read the comments. Almost every time I read the comments, I see the conservative standpoint in the minority. Almost every time said standpoint is stated, 10+ people with opposing viewpoints jump at the opportunity of ridiculing the right.
Possible questions for you:: Do you think the internet has a liberal bias? Why? What implications does this have for our future? (Unnecessary, but I'll include it: Are TL users generally liberal?)
1. Please don't go Aegrean and mind fuck us all.
2. Say something insightful.
I'm HOPING someone who is conservative makes a stand here and everyone is mature about it. I'm also hoping that this can pass as a thread and not necessarily a blog. Apologize in advance if I'm mistaken... it's been awhile.
Disclaimer: You're going to get about 2 paragraphs into this and think I'm a liberal just taking an opportunity to troll, but I assure you, I am not.
Short Answer: The internet artificially selects for a liberally biased population.
Long Answer:
1. We can safely assume that people who do not own computers are at the very least significantly less likely to be denizens of this hive of scum and villainy (HA HA, THE INTERNETS) than those people who do own computers.
2. Computers and the Internet are vaguely selective in that most of the reasons one would purchase one, appeal more strongly to those who are more intelligent. Video games are arguably "harder" to enjoy than, say TV is (let alone whatever it is your stereotypical rednecks are doing).
3. Thus, the Internet has already selected for a population that is skewed somewhat above the average as far as intelligence goes. Moreover, the majority of those people who are exceptions to this rule (most of the people who comment on Youtube, for instance) are likely to take the more common viewpoint among their peers, which on the internet is already being liberal.
Now, this appears to be me claiming that intelligence correlates positively with "liberal-ness" - and this is true, that is my belief, but only up to a point. To explain this, lets reverse the issue:
Liberal positions (using the modern understanding of the term) are, I think, generally characterized by a belief that the end result of conservative policies is unfair, or unjust. Marx rails against the exploitation of the proletariat, the Democrats seek openly to redistribute wealth, they seek to universalize healthcare coverage, and so forth. They are, in essence, trying to help other people.
This is, really, quite easy to support, on the face of it. Who doesn't want to help people? Who, really, is going to admit that they're perfectly happy with people dying from a curable illness because they cant afford treatment*?
I'm making an assumption here that with increasing intelligence comes increasing empathy, which is tenuous, to be sure - but certainly as intelligence increases the capacity we have for worrying about issues which are not of direct importance to our own well being increases.
Now, lets look at the result of, say, arguments against universal health care. It is an unavoidable fact that if you oppose universalized health care you must accept that some people will die when they could, perhaps, have lived with a universal system. This immediately puts conservatives in a fairly sticky position as far as arguments go. It is quite difficult to reconcile this kind of end-result with a concern for society - which is essentially what politics is, an argument over how best to serve society.
It takes a great deal of intellectual fortitude to take a long, hard, unbiased look at the arguments for both sides, and moreover it takes an intellect that has passed through the phase of believing every death is a tragedy that should be prevented at all costs. Such an intellect is, I would argue, more likely to side with conservatives than not, but that particular argument has nothing to do with answering your question. People capable of this kind of cold, logical, and prolonged thinking about very inflammatory issues are few and far between.
tl;dr: Conservatives are over-represented at the extreme ends of intelligence distributions, while Liberals are over-represented in the middle areas. The internet artificially selects a distribution that is biased away from the lower end of that distribution, thus resulting in an artificially high Liberal-to-Conservative ratio.
*Well, I am.
Having written that, I could posit another 3 possibilities for the appearance or fact of a liberal bias on the internet, but I think this one is sufficiently likely to degenerate into flames.
Disclaimer: Conservative
I think that most people on the internet are liberal because they are young and ignorant. It is easy to believe in change and helping out our fellow man when the truth is being hidden by a million veils. While I would love to see free health care the cost of this will drive U.S into the ground.
Now I realize that this is an international site and that there are many countries in Europe that have been able to implement some variant of health care and other liberal social programs but with >300 million people it isn't plausible to cover that many people, especially when there are 3x as many U.S citizens as there is in Russia (The largest population in Europe).
You spoke of how their is a correlation between intelligence and your standpoint on government and that is true. At the bottom of the group you have republican rednecks that want to protect their guns and their property (or what have you) and feel that uncle sam is an evil conglomerate (they probably don't know what that means either) that is out to control them. Then you have the average person that looks at Democratic nominees and how they are trying to help the common man (they are smooth talkers, I'll give them that). After those two groups you get to people that aren't ignorant; By that I mean you get to people that can form an opinion that is more than "I heard nancy say she wanted to help my family so I voted for her". From here you have the leaders and true members of the "Tea party" movement and you have upper middle class that actually follow politics.
After these groups you get to people that pay attention to the details. The people that pay attention to the details skew to the conservative favor because they know that at our current rate of spending we will owe china more than our country is worth in 20 years! (plus other hidden truths) Balancing the budget is being hidden behind the sick children that "Can't receive health care" (that's a lie). The reason why I keep bringing up health care in a "Is the internet liberal" thread is because that is the most widely debated American topic in the last year.
More of a sidenote than part of the actual argument, Getting free health care is not as much of a daunting task as the popular news stations would like you to think it is (especially for children and elders). There is no evil executive letting Aunt betty die of cancer that she could be cured of. Now that being said I think something could and should be done for health care and that isn't a government intrusion into the private sector and it certainly isn't mandatory health care.
What I propose is similar to a tax write off. An easy way to take care of your fellow man AND pay less money to the government (conservatives are having wet dreams about it). Every year about 60% of the American population have to pay some amount of taxes (40% don't have to pay or get money back) but what I propose is having the option to donate to a "Greater Society" charity group ran by independent companies and use the documentation of your charity donations to reduce your taxes by that amount.
Say you made 100,000 a year and paid 12,000 in taxes every april, With this plan you could donate 7,000 to charity and take 8,000 off your taxes (giving a big incentive to give to charity and cutting the governments spending money by upwards of 2/3rds. This is off topic so I am not going to go through all the details I have laid out for this but at 1/3rd of a budget (from april) and shutting down the government programs that aren't needed we can limit the size of government (tbh the only thing our government does right is find ways to botch the constitution) and put all of the charity money to the needy.
Why is buying stuff from China bad for the US?
I wasn't talking about market, I was talking about our national debt. Buy all the toys you want from china it's the money we owe and will owe in the future.
On July 05 2010 19:19 ActualSteve wrote: (I saw the thread from 2008; new administration, different players on the web ... this topic should be brought up to date.)
Seems like every time I watch a YouTube video about politics, I read the comments. Almost every time I read the comments, I see the conservative standpoint in the minority. Almost every time said standpoint is stated, 10+ people with opposing viewpoints jump at the opportunity of ridiculing the right.
Possible questions for you:: Do you think the internet has a liberal bias? Why? What implications does this have for our future? (Unnecessary, but I'll include it: Are TL users generally liberal?)
1. Please don't go Aegrean and mind fuck us all.
2. Say something insightful.
I'm HOPING someone who is conservative makes a stand here and everyone is mature about it. I'm also hoping that this can pass as a thread and not necessarily a blog. Apologize in advance if I'm mistaken... it's been awhile.
Disclaimer: You're going to get about 2 paragraphs into this and think I'm a liberal just taking an opportunity to troll, but I assure you, I am not.
Short Answer: The internet artificially selects for a liberally biased population.
Long Answer:
1. We can safely assume that people who do not own computers are at the very least significantly less likely to be denizens of this hive of scum and villainy (HA HA, THE INTERNETS) than those people who do own computers.
2. Computers and the Internet are vaguely selective in that most of the reasons one would purchase one, appeal more strongly to those who are more intelligent. Video games are arguably "harder" to enjoy than, say TV is (let alone whatever it is your stereotypical rednecks are doing).
3. Thus, the Internet has already selected for a population that is skewed somewhat above the average as far as intelligence goes. Moreover, the majority of those people who are exceptions to this rule (most of the people who comment on Youtube, for instance) are likely to take the more common viewpoint among their peers, which on the internet is already being liberal.
Now, this appears to be me claiming that intelligence correlates positively with "liberal-ness" - and this is true, that is my belief, but only up to a point. To explain this, lets reverse the issue:
Liberal positions (using the modern understanding of the term) are, I think, generally characterized by a belief that the end result of conservative policies is unfair, or unjust. Marx rails against the exploitation of the proletariat, the Democrats seek openly to redistribute wealth, they seek to universalize healthcare coverage, and so forth. They are, in essence, trying to help other people.
This is, really, quite easy to support, on the face of it. Who doesn't want to help people? Who, really, is going to admit that they're perfectly happy with people dying from a curable illness because they cant afford treatment*?
I'm making an assumption here that with increasing intelligence comes increasing empathy, which is tenuous, to be sure - but certainly as intelligence increases the capacity we have for worrying about issues which are not of direct importance to our own well being increases.
Now, lets look at the result of, say, arguments against universal health care. It is an unavoidable fact that if you oppose universalized health care you must accept that some people will die when they could, perhaps, have lived with a universal system. This immediately puts conservatives in a fairly sticky position as far as arguments go. It is quite difficult to reconcile this kind of end-result with a concern for society - which is essentially what politics is, an argument over how best to serve society.
It takes a great deal of intellectual fortitude to take a long, hard, unbiased look at the arguments for both sides, and moreover it takes an intellect that has passed through the phase of believing every death is a tragedy that should be prevented at all costs. Such an intellect is, I would argue, more likely to side with conservatives than not, but that particular argument has nothing to do with answering your question. People capable of this kind of cold, logical, and prolonged thinking about very inflammatory issues are few and far between.
tl;dr: Conservatives are over-represented at the extreme ends of intelligence distributions, while Liberals are over-represented in the middle areas. The internet artificially selects a distribution that is biased away from the lower end of that distribution, thus resulting in an artificially high Liberal-to-Conservative ratio.
*Well, I am.
Having written that, I could posit another 3 possibilities for the appearance or fact of a liberal bias on the internet, but I think this one is sufficiently likely to degenerate into flames.
Disclaimer: Conservative
I think that most people on the internet are liberal because they are young and ignorant. It is easy to believe in change and helping out our fellow man when the truth is being hidden by a million veils. While I would love to see free health care the cost of this will drive U.S into the ground.
Now I realize that this is an international site and that there are many countries in Europe that have been able to implement some variant of health care and other liberal social programs but with >300 million people it isn't plausible to cover that many people, especially when there are 3x as many U.S citizens as there is in Russia (The largest population in Europe).
You spoke of how their is a correlation between intelligence and your standpoint on government and that is true. At the bottom of the group you have republican rednecks that want to protect their guns and their property (or what have you) and feel that uncle sam is an evil conglomerate (they probably don't know what that means either) that is out to control them. Then you have the average person that looks at Democratic nominees and how they are trying to help the common man (they are smooth talkers, I'll give them that). After those two groups you get to people that aren't ignorant; By that I mean you get to people that can form an opinion that is more than "I heard nancy say she wanted to help my family so I voted for her". From here you have the leaders and true members of the "Tea party" movement and you have upper middle class that actually follow politics.
After these groups you get to people that pay attention to the details. The people that pay attention to the details skew to the conservative favor because they know that at our current rate of spending we will owe china more than our country is worth in 20 years! (plus other hidden truths) Balancing the budget is being hidden behind the sick children that "Can't receive health care" (that's a lie). The reason why I keep bringing up health care in a "Is the internet liberal" thread is because that is the most widely debated American topic in the last year.
More of a sidenote than part of the actual argument, Getting free health care is not as much of a daunting task as the popular news stations would like you to think it is (especially for children and elders). There is no evil executive letting Aunt betty die of cancer that she could be cured of. Now that being said I think something could and should be done for health care and that isn't a government intrusion into the private sector and it certainly isn't mandatory health care.
What I propose is similar to a tax write off. An easy way to take care of your fellow man AND pay less money to the government (conservatives are having wet dreams about it). Every year about 60% of the American population have to pay some amount of taxes (40% don't have to pay or get money back) but what I propose is having the option to donate to a "Greater Society" charity group ran by independent companies and use the documentation of your charity donations to reduce your taxes by that amount.
Say you made 100,000 a year and paid 12,000 in taxes every april, With this plan you could donate 7,000 to charity and take 8,000 off your taxes (giving a big incentive to give to charity and cutting the governments spending money by upwards of 2/3rds. This is off topic so I am not going to go through all the details I have laid out for this but at 1/3rd of a budget (from april) and shutting down the government programs that aren't needed we can limit the size of government (tbh the only thing our government does right is find ways to botch the constitution) and put all of the charity money to the needy.
Why is buying stuff from China bad for the US?
Globalization is good in general but if you spend too much importing from other countries it can be an issue. On a small scale it's good though. The question is, do we rely too much on China's products? On a personal level it's awesome, but as a country does the US buy too much from China? I would argue that probably so.
Of course no rational human wants babies to die, however, social dynamics are very different than they used to be
.
Yeah, but so called conservatives have trouble understanding that "killing babies" is a lot different from "not letting them be born".
I find that most conservative opinions stem from their fear of science and religious teachings which are often irrational and prohibit things that make no logical or economic sense.
That's the person, not the political group, it's just sad that they are often the same thing now
Obviously if I were seriously debating an issue, we would have to first agree on definitions. What is a conservative/liberal, etc. The problem in debating is that vague ideologies mean completely different things in the minds of different people. Or maybe they have no fucking clue what they mean, but want to argue anyway.
Which is why I tend not to involve myself in debates like these, because unless you can filter the idiots out (which you can't on the internet), the debate will always spiral down to the smallest common denominator.
also because we are on the internet it is harder to fully comprehend where the other persons view points are. From my posts you probably think that I am in my 30-40's (maybe more) and that I'm a strict republican but I'm 20 and don't have any loyalties to government or religion. It's all about perception of reality and that perception is different for every person. Whether you gained your thought patterns from your parents or your teachers or the books you read, it's different from everyone else.
Age has no relation in regard to how deluded or how correct one can be.
On July 06 2010 02:59 Djzapz wrote: Seriously 787 billions is almost 8 trillions right? Clearly I'm the one who doesn't know about the stimulus package.
Well if you want to be that type of person to pull off from a mistake go right ahead and be the internet normal.
I'm not going to try to set here and justify my mistake, though so go after it all you want when I was the one who admitted to it first, but that just a strawman.
You also need to pick out the politician from the ideology, and as such pick out things that are not ducks (bombing abortion clinics in a sad attempt to justify that behavior doesn't actually mean its justify to the religion). Grouping people together because on the surface they show a link to one another, doesn't quite go together like cogs.
On July 05 2010 19:19 ActualSteve wrote: (I saw the thread from 2008; new administration, different players on the web ... this topic should be brought up to date.)
Seems like every time I watch a YouTube video about politics, I read the comments. Almost every time I read the comments, I see the conservative standpoint in the minority. Almost every time said standpoint is stated, 10+ people with opposing viewpoints jump at the opportunity of ridiculing the right.
Possible questions for you:: Do you think the internet has a liberal bias? Why? What implications does this have for our future? (Unnecessary, but I'll include it: Are TL users generally liberal?)
1. Please don't go Aegrean and mind fuck us all.
2. Say something insightful.
I'm HOPING someone who is conservative makes a stand here and everyone is mature about it. I'm also hoping that this can pass as a thread and not necessarily a blog. Apologize in advance if I'm mistaken... it's been awhile.
Disclaimer: You're going to get about 2 paragraphs into this and think I'm a liberal just taking an opportunity to troll, but I assure you, I am not.
Short Answer: The internet artificially selects for a liberally biased population.
Long Answer:
1. We can safely assume that people who do not own computers are at the very least significantly less likely to be denizens of this hive of scum and villainy (HA HA, THE INTERNETS) than those people who do own computers.
2. Computers and the Internet are vaguely selective in that most of the reasons one would purchase one, appeal more strongly to those who are more intelligent. Video games are arguably "harder" to enjoy than, say TV is (let alone whatever it is your stereotypical rednecks are doing).
3. Thus, the Internet has already selected for a population that is skewed somewhat above the average as far as intelligence goes. Moreover, the majority of those people who are exceptions to this rule (most of the people who comment on Youtube, for instance) are likely to take the more common viewpoint among their peers, which on the internet is already being liberal.
Now, this appears to be me claiming that intelligence correlates positively with "liberal-ness" - and this is true, that is my belief, but only up to a point. To explain this, lets reverse the issue:
Liberal positions (using the modern understanding of the term) are, I think, generally characterized by a belief that the end result of conservative policies is unfair, or unjust. Marx rails against the exploitation of the proletariat, the Democrats seek openly to redistribute wealth, they seek to universalize healthcare coverage, and so forth. They are, in essence, trying to help other people.
This is, really, quite easy to support, on the face of it. Who doesn't want to help people? Who, really, is going to admit that they're perfectly happy with people dying from a curable illness because they cant afford treatment*?
I'm making an assumption here that with increasing intelligence comes increasing empathy, which is tenuous, to be sure - but certainly as intelligence increases the capacity we have for worrying about issues which are not of direct importance to our own well being increases.
Now, lets look at the result of, say, arguments against universal health care. It is an unavoidable fact that if you oppose universalized health care you must accept that some people will die when they could, perhaps, have lived with a universal system. This immediately puts conservatives in a fairly sticky position as far as arguments go. It is quite difficult to reconcile this kind of end-result with a concern for society - which is essentially what politics is, an argument over how best to serve society.
It takes a great deal of intellectual fortitude to take a long, hard, unbiased look at the arguments for both sides, and moreover it takes an intellect that has passed through the phase of believing every death is a tragedy that should be prevented at all costs. Such an intellect is, I would argue, more likely to side with conservatives than not, but that particular argument has nothing to do with answering your question. People capable of this kind of cold, logical, and prolonged thinking about very inflammatory issues are few and far between.
tl;dr: Conservatives are over-represented at the extreme ends of intelligence distributions, while Liberals are over-represented in the middle areas. The internet artificially selects a distribution that is biased away from the lower end of that distribution, thus resulting in an artificially high Liberal-to-Conservative ratio.
*Well, I am.
Having written that, I could posit another 3 possibilities for the appearance or fact of a liberal bias on the internet, but I think this one is sufficiently likely to degenerate into flames.
Disclaimer: Conservative
I think that most people on the internet are liberal because they are young and ignorant. It is easy to believe in change and helping out our fellow man when the truth is being hidden by a million veils. While I would love to see free health care the cost of this will drive U.S into the ground.
Now I realize that this is an international site and that there are many countries in Europe that have been able to implement some variant of health care and other liberal social programs but with >300 million people it isn't plausible to cover that many people, especially when there are 3x as many U.S citizens as there is in Russia (The largest population in Europe).
You spoke of how their is a correlation between intelligence and your standpoint on government and that is true. At the bottom of the group you have republican rednecks that want to protect their guns and their property (or what have you) and feel that uncle sam is an evil conglomerate (they probably don't know what that means either) that is out to control them. Then you have the average person that looks at Democratic nominees and how they are trying to help the common man (they are smooth talkers, I'll give them that). After those two groups you get to people that aren't ignorant; By that I mean you get to people that can form an opinion that is more than "I heard nancy say she wanted to help my family so I voted for her". From here you have the leaders and true members of the "Tea party" movement and you have upper middle class that actually follow politics.
After these groups you get to people that pay attention to the details. The people that pay attention to the details skew to the conservative favor because they know that at our current rate of spending we will owe china more than our country is worth in 20 years! (plus other hidden truths) Balancing the budget is being hidden behind the sick children that "Can't receive health care" (that's a lie). The reason why I keep bringing up health care in a "Is the internet liberal" thread is because that is the most widely debated American topic in the last year.
More of a sidenote than part of the actual argument, Getting free health care is not as much of a daunting task as the popular news stations would like you to think it is (especially for children and elders). There is no evil executive letting Aunt betty die of cancer that she could be cured of. Now that being said I think something could and should be done for health care and that isn't a government intrusion into the private sector and it certainly isn't mandatory health care.
What I propose is similar to a tax write off. An easy way to take care of your fellow man AND pay less money to the government (conservatives are having wet dreams about it). Every year about 60% of the American population have to pay some amount of taxes (40% don't have to pay or get money back) but what I propose is having the option to donate to a "Greater Society" charity group ran by independent companies and use the documentation of your charity donations to reduce your taxes by that amount.
Say you made 100,000 a year and paid 12,000 in taxes every april, With this plan you could donate 7,000 to charity and take 8,000 off your taxes (giving a big incentive to give to charity and cutting the governments spending money by upwards of 2/3rds. This is off topic so I am not going to go through all the details I have laid out for this but at 1/3rd of a budget (from april) and shutting down the government programs that aren't needed we can limit the size of government (tbh the only thing our government does right is find ways to botch the constitution) and put all of the charity money to the needy.
Why is buying stuff from China bad for the US?
I wasn't talking about market, I was talking about our national debt. Buy all the toys you want from china it's the money we owe and will owe in the future.
My bad. I thought you were talking about the trade deficit
[/QUOTE] Why is buying stuff from China bad for the US? [/QUOTE] Globalization is good in general but if you spend too much importing from other countries it can be an issue. On a small scale it's good though. The question is, do we rely too much on China's products? On a personal level it's awesome, but as a country does the US buy too much from China? I would argue that probably so.
Protectionism on the other hand is even worse.[/QUOTE] There is nothing wrong with buying things from China. China is extremely good at producing goods cheaply. If we were to stop trading with China and produce the goods ourselves we would be worse off.
China gives up much less to produce these goods than what we would give up to produce these goods. Despite much cynicism in america, we are a very educated populace and have access to many other professions than than assembly line workers, while China is a relatively less educated and poorer populace and has much fewer options. It is in their best interest to specialize in mass production of cheap goods (for the time being) and in our best interest to specialize in other things.
First off, I typically find that people who label liberals as young, ignorant, and naive to have the same value as talking to a toaster. Similarly, people that label conservatives as old, greedy, and afraid of change to have about the same value as talking to a dog about economics. There are intelligent people on both sides, and there are dumb people on both sides, and these labels are nonsense (even if they are true of some individuals)
Secondly, I've always found it kind of ironic to hear this particular argument made often: I think free/cheaper health care would be a great thing, but it would drive our national debt up. Think about how much we owe China! <takes a side step> It is really good that we invaded Iraq and spent all that money trying to stabilize their country, because it was the right thing to do.
I sometimes wonder why it's only okay to do the "right thing" when it's not our country. As an aside, I wonder if there is any circumstance in which China would actually try to collect on their debt. I mean, it doesn't seem very likely that they will anytime soon, as the consequences would be obviously... disastrous.
For now. Comparative advantage can be manipulated by a government. If we underinvest in education and research...
Schumpeter's problem with globalization is that you risk losing certain networking benefits by shipping out certain parts of the manufacturing process. Also we clearly have shown that we prefer jobs to cash (atleast on the micro level). For example, there are stories of groups of employees taking pay cuts rather than risk unemployment. While globalization does make us wealthier, we may not necessarily want to make the trade off.
Also just want to add the libertarians generally come off as insane. Markets are beautiful things, but you're asking for trouble there is not some degree of systematic planning.
If we assume that the internet encompasses all people and their opinions, then by default the internet can only be neutral, since true neutrality would be the mean (average) liberal/conservative opinions.
Fig. 1
If we assume that the internet continues to incorporate every person, then every data point is represented underneath the curve. Then all opinions average out to neutrality.
Two points: 1ST: You—since you do not know the opinions of everyone—can not take the mean of opinions and therefore not know what true left/right neutrality is. Likely you base you mean neutrality gauge on your experience with yourself and others. Likely you view yourself as having neutral-bias since you have based you opinions of neutrally off: a. Your own opinions, which stand formost in your understanding of the world b. Your family's opinions which likely shaped your political philosophies. c. Your friend's opinions. You likely choose your friends through compatible ideologies, or because they were a by-product of a similar environment. Since your pool of data (sample) which you determine neutrality is not representative of the population
Fig. 2
Your definition of neutrality is bias. The internet—since it incorporates a much larger sample (or possibility the entire population)—would actually be a more accurate gauge of neutrality.
2ND: I agree with you that strong liberal/conservative opinions seem to be over-represented. Since the internet is voluntary response, it means only people who are highly invested in politics—and therefore high chance of being partisan—are making comments on political threads.
However, your conclusion of liberal bias is due to an availability bias. If I assume you are a conservative (since you are complaining about liberals) then all liberal opinions tend to stick out because: a. more of the opinions appear liberal since more of them actually are "liberal" according too your own sense of bias neutrality (see Fig 3).
Fig. 3
b. The outliers to the left appear even further away from your neutrality. Conservative outliers appear less outlandish since they are closer to you (even if you can recognize them as being Conservative) Since the strong liberals tend to stand out as being more strongly bias you tend to remember them more. This is an Availability Heuristic because you can recall them better (since they were more extreme).
The internet since it embodies, possibly the largest sample size imaginable, is perhaps the least bias media in the world. Now since some people dont use the internet (i.e. My grandparents who are conservative) and some people weigh in more (cooperations with money, political activists) their would be a conceivable bias. But like I said, the sample is as close to the population as imaginable. Cooperations actually have an equal say on a forum as a human, because it is free for everyone (money does not apply) something I can not say about television media.
The internet since it incorporates so many people and because this sample of views originates from the population of the world, all points in the internet curve must exist under the population curve. [note: when I drew your opinion curve some points existed outside out the population curve this was intended for illustrative purposes as your curve was two small to see otherwise]
Fig. 4
The internet—containing so much of the population's opinions—exhibits a local neutrality almost identical to the global neutrality, since the size of the sample and population are very similar. What I mean by local neutrality is the neutrality exhibited within that group sample. The larger the sample size the more likely the sample is representative of the population, and the local neutrality becomes a more valid indicator of global neutrality. Since the internet is one of the largest possible samples, it is the most accurate indicator of the true population's neutrality.
Lets take at a smaller sample. FoxNews which I represented by the right green curve in Fig. 4 is "Fair and Balanced"™ in a local sense, since all of its ~1000 contributors contribute their views to form the sample's neutrality. However, the sample of reporters is not random. Fox attracts conservative reporters and opinions since most of their viewers are conservative. Fox's corespondents likely base their political ideology off of available sources (i.e. Their conservative Co-workers). Fox's viewers likely base their own neutrality gauges off of Fox, who tries to give their viewer the conservative opinions they demand (thus feeding off of each other.) The feed-back of viewers and the network/corespondents furthers the idea of political bias, since people get a larger (tho equally bias) sample to base their neutrality gauge on. This creates a divide between the various news networks and viewers, which decreases the communication (the access of conservatives to moderate-liberal arguments) and prevents people from Balancing their neutrality gauge with opposing opinions. The same could be said about MSMBC and Liberals (Fig. 4 left green curve). An advantage of the internet, is that there is only One. All opinions are given equal status, and the sheer number of participants and speed of information ensures the people are less likely to close off themselves from opposing opinions. On the internet 1 Billion get to base their neutrality off of each other instead of just 1000 agreeable network contributors. However segmentation of the internet into sites, does restrict complete free access. Idealogical clicks still form within forums, and certain forums (@OP perhaps the ones you visited) will invariably contain a local bias due to a smaller sample. A great example of this would be a really conservative forum run by Fox, which only FoxConservatives would post on. Because of the belief that this Fox run Forum was indifferently conservative, mild liberals would probably stay away. The occasional Ultra-Liberal, however, would make a outrageous post to intentionally upset the status quo. *This would cause an availability-bias since the Conservatives posters would remember the Crazy-Liberals post, because it upset their "neutral" discussion, while the moderate-liberal didn't actually balence to the forum's local neutrality curve.* Within this segmentation, there is bias in the internet. However, since the internet contains thousands of forums, which are posted by the largest sample of the population, it all averages out to be very neutral media. Just as the TV news media averages out to be more neutral than the individual networks.
Originally, the Center Green curve in Fig 4. was supposed to be CNN. I guess it still could be... but I rather repurpose it.
Now imagine the center curve is a random sample, such as the Gallup Poll. Unlike news network corespondents they were chosen randomly from the population. Because of random selection, the Poll's neutrality gauge is representative of the actual population. However, note that polls never actually contain the whole population. Samples are only samples of the population. A Gallup Poll sample size—though accurate to ±4%—pales in size when compared to the internet. Problems with polls is that they often can have misleading questions which can represent bias of the organization giving the poll. For instance: Poll 1: In light of Obama recent mishandling of the horrifying Gulf Oil Disaster, do you approve of him? y/n Poll 2: Do you approve of Obama's handling of the recent Gulf Oil Spill? y/n Poll 3: Considering Obama's successful halt of job loss, is the Oil Spill a important concern? y/n Obviously, 2 of these imaginary polls contain bias. An other issue polls are only targeted to single issues, whereas the internet can contain everyone's opinions, from "24" cancellation to Israel. To my knowledge, Gallup has never issued asked:
but the internet has. The biggest problem with the internet is that it is so huge, it is almost impossible to quantify. Because it represents a more of the population it should be assumed as more neutral representing, but it is impossible for me or the OP to know its true bias.
@OP It is likely that more of the world appears liberal to you, but remember only half of the world can be liberal and half conservative. If some people change their mind (lets say everyone suddenly agrees abortion is bad) then the mean opinion would shift with this change. Abortion would cease being a liberal/conservative specifier—since no one would disagree with the issue—and the mean (neutral) opinion would therefore be anti-abortion. It is likely that you have a conservative outlook. You have based your sense of neutrality on that conservative outlook, and therefor more of the world would appear as liberal (Fig 3). But, we don't actually know the global neutrality. If we collected everyone and linearized their philosophies into Conservative/Liberal, you could turn out to be Left of the mean (as illustrated in Fig 5)
Fig 5. Since we don't know the actual global neutrality due to limited sample, you could hypothetically be liberal.
Until then, it is ok to call networks liberal/conservative or web sites as left/rightist. But the internet as a whole, considering it is possibly the largest sample of opinions ever, is as close to global mean as possible.
Final Note: @OP: You may consider yourself as neutral (or maybe even slightly liberal) I assumed you were a conservative, but my graphs and examples should still apply if you can admit to even the slightest bias on your local opinions as opposed to the global mean, regardless of directionality (left/right).
Please don't flame me for being a liberal. I recently changed from conservative to liberal (if you want to call it that since I lack most morality) If this thread was called "Conservative Internet" I would be saying the same things (tho my graphs would be reversed). Also, don't take offense at the attack of FoxNews, I used it b/c i figured you were a conservative. I watch FoxNews and MSMBC each 30% of the time and CNN 40%. I meant it when I said, "The same [about Fox] could be said about MSMBC," it should.
gg
Edit: Wow I didn't realize how long this took me. So many post between me and the OP. I hope I didn't break up any discussion.
On July 06 2010 06:14 Sabu113 wrote: For now. Comparative advantage can be manipulated by a government. If we underinvest in education and research...
Schumpeter's problem with globalization is that you risk losing certain networking benefits by shipping out certain parts of the manufacturing process. Also we clearly have shown that we prefer jobs to cash (atleast on the micro level). For example, there are stories of groups of employees taking pay cuts rather than risk unemployment. While globalization does make us wealthier, we may not necessarily want to make the trade off.
Also just want to add the libertarians generally come off as insane. Markets are beautiful things, but you're asking for trouble there is not some degree of systematic planning.
Hamilton4life.
1. If China is made wealthier by producing cheap manufactured goods for the world, they will become a new market to buy our stuff/use our services/invest in US markets. This creates jobs and wealth for us and China. Everybody wins.
2. I agree. True Libertarianism is like true Communism. It may look good on paper to some people, but is not sustainable on a large scale.
On July 06 2010 03:41 Myles wrote: What I'd like is someone with conservative economic theory but a liberal view on individual rights. In America it doesn't seem like that's possible right now.
Like libertarians? I'm one of them.
Yea, but there's way too many kind of libertarians. You got nutso anarchist-libertarians and socialist-libertarians, then left and right and everything in between. Plus, I was talking more of in conventional politics. It seems like to get someone who wants small government they also have to pretty much be hardcore republican.
What in the fuck actually is a libertarian? Every time I try to get a definition I get something different. People claim themselves of being a libertarian so often and in a similar way, people accuse others of being libertarian just as much in all sorts of different ways.
On July 06 2010 06:15 yeti wrote: If we assume that the internet encompasses all people and their opinions, then by default the internet can only be neutral, since true neutrality would be the mean (average) liberal/conservative opinions.
Fig. 1
If we assume that the internet continues to incorporate every person, then every data point is represented underneath the curve. Then all opinions average out to neutrality.
Two points: 1ST: You—since you do not know the opinions of everyone—can not take the mean of opinions and therefore not know what true left/right neutrality is. Likely you base you mean neutrality gauge on your experience with yourself and others. Likely you view yourself as having neutral-bias since you have based you opinions of neutrally off: a. Your own opinions, which stand formost in your understanding of the world b. Your family's opinions which likely shaped your political philosophies. c. Your friend's opinions. You likely choose your friends through compatible ideologies, or because they were a by-product of a similar environment. Since your pool of data (sample) which you determine neutrality is not representative of the population
Fig. 2
Your definition of neutrality is bias. The internet—since it incorporates a much larger sample (or possibility the entire population)—would actually be a more accurate gauge of neutrality.
2ND: I agree with you that strong liberal/conservative opinions seem to be over-represented. Since the internet is voluntary response, it means only people who are highly invested in politics—and therefore high chance of being partisan—are making comments on political threads.
However, your conclusion of liberal bias is due to an availability bias. If I assume you are a conservative (since you are complaining about liberals) then all liberal opinions tend to stick out because: a. more of the opinions appear liberal since more of them actually are "liberal" according too your own sense of bias neutrality (see Fig 3).
Fig. 3
b. The outliers to the left appear even further away from your neutrality. Conservative outliers appear less outlandish since they are closer to you (even if you can recognize them as being Conservative) Since the strong liberals tend to stand out as being more strongly bias you tend to remember them more. This is an Availability Heuristic because you can recall them better (since they were more extreme).
The internet since it embodies, possibly the largest sample size imaginable, is perhaps the least bias media in the world. Now since some people dont use the internet (i.e. My grandparents who are conservative) and some people weigh in more (cooperations with money, political activists) their would be a conceivable bias. But like I said, the sample is as close to the population as imaginable. Cooperations actually have an equal say on a forum as a human, because it is free for everyone (money does not apply) something I can not say about television media.
The internet since it incorporates so many people and because this sample of views originates from the population of the world, all points in the internet curve must exist under the population curve. [note: when I drew your opinion curve some points existed outside out the population curve this was intended for illustrative purposes as your curve was two small to see otherwise]
Fig. 4
The internet—containing so much of the population's opinions—exhibits a local neutrality almost identical to the global neutrality, since the size of the sample and population are very similar. What I mean by local neutrality is the neutrality exhibited within that group sample. The larger the sample size the more likely the sample is representative of the population, and the local neutrality becomes a more valid indicator of global neutrality. Since the internet is one of the largest possible samples, it is the most accurate indicator of the true population's neutrality.
Lets take at a smaller sample. FoxNews which I represented by the right green curve in Fig. 4 is "Fair and Balanced"™ in a local sense, since all of its ~1000 contributors contribute their views to form the sample's neutrality. However, the sample of reporters is not random. Fox attracts conservative reporters and opinions since most of their viewers are conservative. Fox's corespondents likely base their political ideology off of available sources (i.e. Their conservative Co-workers). Fox's viewers likely base their own neutrality gauges off of Fox, who tries to give their viewer the conservative opinions they demand (thus feeding off of each other.) The feed-back of viewers and the network/corespondents furthers the idea of political bias, since people get a larger (tho equally bias) sample to base their neutrality gauge on. This creates a divide between the various news networks and viewers, which decreases the communication (the access of conservatives to moderate-liberal arguments) and prevents people from Balancing their neutrality gauge with opposing opinions. The same could be said about MSMBC and Liberals (Fig. 4 left green curve). An advantage of the internet, is that there is only One. All opinions are given equal status, and the sheer number of participants and speed of information ensures the people are less likely to close off themselves from opposing opinions. On the internet 1 Billion get to base their neutrality off of each other instead of just 1000 agreeable network contributors. However segmentation of the internet into sites, does restrict complete free access. Idealogical clicks still form within forums, and certain forums (@OP perhaps the ones you visited) will invariably contain a local bias due to a smaller sample. A great example of this would be a really conservative forum run by Fox, which only FoxConservatives would post on. Because of the belief that this Fox run Forum was indifferently conservative, mild liberals would probably stay away. The occasional Ultra-Liberal, however, would make a outrageous post to intentionally upset the status quo. *This would cause an availability-bias since the Conservatives posters would remember the Crazy-Liberals post, because it upset their "neutral" discussion, while the moderate-liberal didn't actually balence to the forum's local neutrality curve.* Within this segmentation, there is bias in the internet. However, since the internet contains thousands of forums, which are posted by the largest sample of the population, it all averages out to be very neutral media. Just as the TV news media averages out to be more neutral than the individual networks.
Originally, the Center Green curve in Fig 4. was supposed to be CNN. I guess it still could be... but I rather repurpose it.
Now imagine the center curve is a random sample, such as the Gallup Poll. Unlike news network corespondents they were chosen randomly from the population. Because of random selection, the Poll's neutrality gauge is representative of the actual population. However, note that polls never actually contain the whole population. Samples are only samples of the population. A Gallup Poll sample size—though accurate to ±4%—pales in size when compared to the internet. Problems with polls is that they often can have misleading questions which can represent bias of the organization giving the poll. For instance: Poll 1: In light of Obama recent mishandling of the horrifying Gulf Oil Disaster, do you approve of him? y/n Poll 2: Do you approve of Obama's handling of the recent Gulf Oil Spill? y/n Poll 3: Considering Obama's successful halt of job loss, is the Oil Spill a important concern? y/n Obviously, 2 of these imaginary polls contain bias. An other issue polls are only targeted to single issues, whereas the internet can contain everyone's opinions, from "24" cancellation to Israel. To my knowledge, Gallup has never issued asked:
but the internet has. The biggest problem with the internet is that it is so huge, it is almost impossible to quantify. Because it represents a more of the population it should be assumed as more neutral representing, but it is impossible for me or the OP to know its true bias.
@OP It is likely that more of the world appears liberal to you, but remember only half of the world can be liberal and half conservative. If some people change their mind (lets say everyone suddenly agrees abortion is bad) then the mean opinion would shift with this change. Abortion would cease being a liberal/conservative specifier—since no one would disagree with the issue—and the mean (neutral) opinion would therefore be anti-abortion. It is likely that you have a conservative outlook. You have based your sense of neutrality on that conservative outlook, and therefor more of the world would appear as liberal (Fig 3). But, we don't actually know the global neutrality. If we collected everyone and linearized their philosophies into Conservative/Liberal, you could turn out to be Left of the mean (as illustrated in Fig 5)
Fig 5. Since we don't know the actual global neutrality due to limited sample, you could hypothetically be liberal.
Until then, it is ok to call networks liberal/conservative or web sites as left/rightist. But the internet as a whole, considering it is possibly the largest sample of opinions ever, is as close to global mean as possible.
Final Note: @OP: You may consider yourself as neutral (or maybe even slightly liberal) I assumed you were a conservative, but my graphs and examples should still apply if you can admit to even the slightest bias on your local opinions as opposed to the global mean, regardless of directionality (left/right).
Please don't flame me for being a liberal. I recently changed from conservative to liberal (if you want to call it that since I lack most morality) If this thread was called "Conservative Internet" I would be saying the same things (tho my graphs would be reversed). Also, don't take offense at the attack of FoxNews, I used it b/c i figured you were a conservative. I watch FoxNews and MSMBC each 30% of the time and CNN 40%. I meant it when I said, "The same [about Fox] could be said about MSMBC," it should.
gg
Edit: Wow I didn't realize how long this took me. So many post between me and the OP. I hope I didn't break up any discussion.
Props for the sheer work you put into that. And nice points
EDIT: And sAviOr because he would be the boss, the leader, of all the zergs in the prison
I agree that the newer generation are more likely to be liberal about certain issues, but I highly doubt this make all of then left-wing. I, for one, feel like I prefer a (mid-)right-wing party.
I'd vote for the Conservatives if they weren't so stupid.
On July 06 2010 02:59 Djzapz wrote: Seriously 787 billions is almost 8 trillions right? Clearly I'm the one who doesn't know about the stimulus package.
Well if you want to be that type of person to pull off from a mistake go right ahead and be the internet normal.
I'm not going to try to set here and justify my mistake, though so go after it all you want when I was the one who admitted to it first, but that just a strawman.
You also need to pick out the politician from the ideology, and as such pick out things that are not ducks (bombing abortion clinics in a sad attempt to justify that behavior doesn't actually mean its justify to the religion). Grouping people together because on the surface they show a link to one another, doesn't quite go together like cogs.
So lets see if you want to go from here.
Honestly if you want to be taken seriously and you think the US pulled a 8 trillion dollars bill, expect it won't work.
You're not worth my time if you want to argue economics, because anyone worthwhile would have realized that 8T made no sense whatsoever.
Bring up something else and we can have a little skirmish, but economics isn't your field.
As far as the point you just made, I have nothing to add.
I am assuming by the OP the thread-creator is using the term liberal as one who pushes for a larger government role in the lives of the citizen. I have a quote that I would like to submit:
"We all declare for liberty; but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing. With some the word may mean for each man to do as he pleases with himself, and the product of his labor; while with others, the same word may mean for some men to do as they please with other men and the product of other men's labor. Here are two, not only different, but incompatible things, called by the same name - liberty. And it follows that each of these things is, by the respective parties, called by two different and incompatible names - liberty and tyranny." - Abraham Lincoln
True conservatives are only interested in the government doing what it constitutionally has the power to do. Liberals should not be called liberals, because the root word would mean the opposite of authoritarian. Liberals should be called Stateists in that they wish for a more powerful and controlling centralized government that gives out, in their view, "liberty and equality".
I do not consider anything the government gives to me increasing my liberty. The less they infringe on my life the better.
On July 06 2010 06:21 rockon1215 wrote: 1. If China is made wealthier by producing cheap manufactured goods for the world, they will become a new market to buy our stuff/use our services/invest in US markets. This creates jobs and wealth for us and China. Everybody wins.
EDIT: Zergling now. I feel like a man
I think we both agree with each other for the most part. I have just been recently apprised of convincing arguments detailing why free trade may not necessarily be win win even though it seems to be that way in Theory.
The parable of isolandia is very eloquent. Unfortunately neither that parable nor your "jobs" will necessarily be on par with our lost jobs or ever grow to be equivalent to our lost jobs. No country really desires to be stuck manufacturing low tech goods for a long time. They rather have the high rent producing engineers and financiers. Also China's government has shown an active interest in actively managing their national investment in order to attain a high-tech economy. In doing so the result my not necessarily be a win-win scenario as we might be relegated with low tech jobs as we have lost the network benefits (sharing ideas, outsourcing within the nation, etc.) from having medium tier jobs.
Also creative destruction may not always necessarily be a worthwhile cost to bear. A good example is that inefficiencies in subsidizing local farms might be worthwhile because of the public good of excellent produce (though I suppose you could argue that there should be a market for foreign lower quality produce and organic super vegan friendly produce instead, but that same argument could be extended to lead paint on toys etc.).
Finding legitimate arguments against free trade can be difficult, but it's quite interesting.
On July 06 2010 06:54 oBlit wrote: I do not consider anything the government gives to me increasing my liberty. The less they infringe on my life the better.
I'm sorry we the people who aren't you wanted government-provided laws to protect our liberty from douchebags, and government-provided roads to promote our freedom to travel, and government-provided regulations to enhance our freedom to breathe air that isn't toxic and eat food that isn't poison. If we ever have a new government, we'll make sure to get your OK before making the country a good place to live.
'Infringe' indeed... your life depends on the government in a dozen ways.
Those terms are veeeeery relative. I assume you mean liberal as the us party. I'm not sure about that, but probably yes. But keep in mind that what may sound too liberal there, in other places of the world may even sound too conservative.
On July 06 2010 02:59 Djzapz wrote: Seriously 787 billions is almost 8 trillions right? Clearly I'm the one who doesn't know about the stimulus package.
Well if you want to be that type of person to pull off from a mistake go right ahead and be the internet normal.
I'm not going to try to set here and justify my mistake, though so go after it all you want when I was the one who admitted to it first, but that just a strawman.
You also need to pick out the politician from the ideology, and as such pick out things that are not ducks (bombing abortion clinics in a sad attempt to justify that behavior doesn't actually mean its justify to the religion). Grouping people together because on the surface they show a link to one another, doesn't quite go together like cogs.
So lets see if you want to go from here.
Honestly if you want to be taken seriously and you think the US pulled a 8 trillion dollars bill, expect it won't work.
You're not worth my time if you want to argue economics, because anyone worthwhile would have realized that 8T made no sense whatsoever.
Bring up something else and we can have a little skirmish, but economics isn't your field.
As far as the point you just made, I have nothing to add.
I said it was a mistake continue to home in all you want on it. I don't care and it's pretty moot and petty. You are pulling a straw man argument while you're at it also.
Very blunt, what makes you think you actually worth time when all you did was go hostile, over what? A difference in opinion? You really really should see the irony here.
And anyone can mistake things at anytime, I could be the average internet guy that goes after these things, but I tend to think its beneath both parties.
Funny you say I should bring up other things, which contrary to what your doing know, I HAVE but no you want to focus on this....
You have nothing to add, but to try to bash me? Irony!
ON a side note I said I wouldn't try to justify using 8 trillon instead of 800 billion.
But since it actually will add to the conversation and add content I will.
I got 8 trillion and 800 billion mixed up because of the government bailout, so in retrospect I made a mistake int the numbers for each one, but still the government has spent 8 trillion dollars. Also note that that bill actually has already hit 8.5 trillion.
I wonder is it fiscally responsible for the congress to give money to banks that have failed, but still choose to go on lavish parties? Using hindsight here, but the problem was present when the money was being drawn up.
Not much for your argument to try to say I don't know what I'm talking about, so how about we drop the hostility and play this out more peaceful?
On July 06 2010 02:59 Djzapz wrote: Seriously 787 billions is almost 8 trillions right? Clearly I'm the one who doesn't know about the stimulus package.
Well if you want to be that type of person to pull off from a mistake go right ahead and be the internet normal.
I'm not going to try to set here and justify my mistake, though so go after it all you want when I was the one who admitted to it first, but that just a strawman.
You also need to pick out the politician from the ideology, and as such pick out things that are not ducks (bombing abortion clinics in a sad attempt to justify that behavior doesn't actually mean its justify to the religion). Grouping people together because on the surface they show a link to one another, doesn't quite go together like cogs.
So lets see if you want to go from here.
Honestly if you want to be taken seriously and you think the US pulled a 8 trillion dollars bill, expect it won't work.
You're not worth my time if you want to argue economics, because anyone worthwhile would have realized that 8T made no sense whatsoever.
Bring up something else and we can have a little skirmish, but economics isn't your field.
As far as the point you just made, I have nothing to add.
I said it was a mistake continue to home in all you want on it. I don't care and it's pretty moot and petty. You are pulling a straw man argument while you're at it also.
Very blunt, what makes you think you actually worth time when all you did was go hostile, over what? A difference in opinion? You really really should see the irony here.
And anyone can mistake things at anytime, I could be the average internet guy that goes after these things, but I tend to think its beneath both parties.
Funny you say I should bring up other things, which contrary to what your doing know, I HAVE but no you want to focus on this....
You have nothing to add, but to try to bash me? Irony!
ON a side note I said I wouldn't try to justify using 8 trillon instead of 800 billion.
But since it actually will add to the conversation and add content I will.
I got 8 trillion and 800 billion mixed up because of the government bailout, so in retrospect I made a mistake int the numbers for each one, but still the government has spent 8 trillion dollars. Also note that that bill actually has already hit 8.5 trillion.
I wonder is it fiscally responsible for the congress to give money to banks that have failed, but still choose to go on lavish parties? Using hindsight here, but the problem was present when the money was being drawn up.
Not much for your argument to try to say I don't know what I'm talking about, so how about we drop the hostility and play this out more peaceful?
lol, you don't understand anything... those things are not even interrelated and it's basically adding numbers that don't have anything to do with each other... like.. what the hell man, you even call it "that bill" suggesting that you actually believe it's one thing.
gg no re
PS: Actual research is good. Looking into a matter, not looking for the answer that you want. So no, no "peaceful" argument on a topic you clearly don't understand.
On July 06 2010 06:21 rockon1215 wrote: 1. If China is made wealthier by producing cheap manufactured goods for the world, they will become a new market to buy our stuff/use our services/invest in US markets. This creates jobs and wealth for us and China. Everybody wins.
EDIT: Zergling now. I feel like a man
I think we both agree with each other for the most part. I have just been recently apprised of convincing arguments detailing why free trade may not necessarily be win win even though it seems to be that way in Theory.
The parable of isolandia is very eloquent. Unfortunately neither that parable nor your "jobs" will necessarily be on par with our lost jobs or ever grow to be equivalent to our lost jobs. No country really desires to be stuck manufacturing low tech goods for a long time. They rather have the high rent producing engineers and financiers. Also China's government has shown an active interest in actively managing their national investment in order to attain a high-tech economy. In doing so the result my not necessarily be a win-win scenario as we might be relegated with low tech jobs as we have lost the network benefits (sharing ideas, outsourcing within the nation, etc.) from having medium tier jobs.
Also creative destruction may not always necessarily be a worthwhile cost to bear. A good example is that inefficiencies in subsidizing local farms might be worthwhile because of the public good of excellent produce (though I suppose you could argue that there should be a market for foreign lower quality produce and organic super vegan friendly produce instead, but that same argument could be extended to lead paint on toys etc.).
Finding legitimate arguments against free trade can be difficult, but it's quite interesting.
Interesting indeed. Economics is fun. Good debate kind sir
I sometimes wonder why it's only okay to do the "right thing" when it's not our country. As an aside, I wonder if there is any circumstance in which China would actually try to collect on their debt. I mean, it doesn't seem very likely that they will anytime soon, as the consequences would be obviously... disastrous.
“A citizen of America will cross the ocean to fight for democracy but won't cross the street to vote in a national election”
On July 06 2010 02:59 Djzapz wrote: Seriously 787 billions is almost 8 trillions right? Clearly I'm the one who doesn't know about the stimulus package.
Well if you want to be that type of person to pull off from a mistake go right ahead and be the internet normal.
I'm not going to try to set here and justify my mistake, though so go after it all you want when I was the one who admitted to it first, but that just a strawman.
You also need to pick out the politician from the ideology, and as such pick out things that are not ducks (bombing abortion clinics in a sad attempt to justify that behavior doesn't actually mean its justify to the religion). Grouping people together because on the surface they show a link to one another, doesn't quite go together like cogs.
So lets see if you want to go from here.
Honestly if you want to be taken seriously and you think the US pulled a 8 trillion dollars bill, expect it won't work.
You're not worth my time if you want to argue economics, because anyone worthwhile would have realized that 8T made no sense whatsoever.
Bring up something else and we can have a little skirmish, but economics isn't your field.
As far as the point you just made, I have nothing to add.
I said it was a mistake continue to home in all you want on it. I don't care and it's pretty moot and petty. You are pulling a straw man argument while you're at it also.
Very blunt, what makes you think you actually worth time when all you did was go hostile, over what? A difference in opinion? You really really should see the irony here.
And anyone can mistake things at anytime, I could be the average internet guy that goes after these things, but I tend to think its beneath both parties.
Funny you say I should bring up other things, which contrary to what your doing know, I HAVE but no you want to focus on this....
You have nothing to add, but to try to bash me? Irony!
ON a side note I said I wouldn't try to justify using 8 trillon instead of 800 billion.
But since it actually will add to the conversation and add content I will.
I got 8 trillion and 800 billion mixed up because of the government bailout, so in retrospect I made a mistake int the numbers for each one, but still the government has spent 8 trillion dollars. Also note that that bill actually has already hit 8.5 trillion.
I wonder is it fiscally responsible for the congress to give money to banks that have failed, but still choose to go on lavish parties? Using hindsight here, but the problem was present when the money was being drawn up.
Not much for your argument to try to say I don't know what I'm talking about, so how about we drop the hostility and play this out more peaceful?
lol, you don't understand anything... those things are not even interrelated and it's basically adding numbers that don't have anything to do with each other... like.. what the hell man, you even call it "that bill" suggesting that you actually believe it's one thing.
gg no re
PS: Actual research is good. Looking into a matter, not looking for the answer that you want.
You really have a problem with a difference in opinion? OR did something else twist your panties for you to go after somebody like this? At this point, take some time to relax.
hahaha, wow you still want to play this. You are classic. No substance but pure "I'm going to go after him because I have no argument left play." What happen to dealing with the content of my past posts, playing the same broken record?
You really think I tried to pull 8 trillion out of thin air, please offer the person you debate some respect next time, before it comes back to bite you.
lol, at not being interrelated, and those numbers have a lot to do with each other.
Are you seriously now going after one word? Are you that desperate at this point? I remember dealing with that at gamefaqs, and that's one of the reasons why I don't post there anymore. ( and no if you would look and comprehend what I write and you wouldn't come to that conclusion you would see it was more of a term of speak then anything else.
I really want to know what I wrote that made you hostile like this.
Debating [you] on the topic of [economics] is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon — it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory.
I have no problem with a difference in opinion - however when you show some blatant misunderstanding a topic, I don't know why I would debate you.
I'll go ahead and give you whatever respect I can gather. I'm sure you're a good guy in your life. You go about and people like you and they give you hugs. But, for anybody with a basis on economics, you're just a guy on the internet who links to some sites without really understanding the content.
If I were a creationist, I could start linking phony URLs regarding evolution. A scientist who reads my thread shrugs it off because I clearly have no understanding of the topic I'm trying to bring up based on the fact that I would most likely not use the proper terms which would definitely give him a hint that I may not be capable of having a decent discussion regarding evolutionary biology. Said scientist may even take a potshot at me!
I could go back to things I know and talk about guns or I can get angry at the scientist and taunt him into answering to me.
Do you actually think that the 7.8 or 8.5 trillion figures are relevant?
If so, what does the 8.5 trillion dollars represent? (Research this one, you'll learn something!!)
Now that you've done the research, do you agree that using the 8.5 trillion dollars figure, while it does exist, is actually rather irrelevant to the current state of affairs?
With the previous question answered, do you think it's just disingenuous to bring up the figure or was it ignorance? Or does it somehow make sense to bring it up in an argument?
Was it correct to bring it up as "one bill" when clearly many of those decisions were made separately, some of them before and others after the current administration?
If you were to argue again, would you still use the 8.5 trillion figure or you would go ahead and find an actual figure?
Are you aware that economists (not you!!) agree that the bailout was actually a good decision and many of those companies have already paid off their bailout money?
Did you know that it's extremely likely that if we hadn't had that bailout, we would be significantly worse off with the death of those companies and all the jobs that would have been lost?
On July 06 2010 06:15 yeti wrote: If we assume that the internet encompasses all people and their opinions, then by default the internet can only be neutral, since true neutrality would be the mean (average) liberal/conservative opinions.
Fig. 1
If we assume that the internet continues to incorporate every person, then every data point is represented underneath the curve. Then all opinions average out to neutrality.
Two points: 1ST: You—since you do not know the opinions of everyone—can not take the mean of opinions and therefore not know what true left/right neutrality is. Likely you base you mean neutrality gauge on your experience with yourself and others. Likely you view yourself as having neutral-bias since you have based you opinions of neutrally off: a. Your own opinions, which stand formost in your understanding of the world b. Your family's opinions which likely shaped your political philosophies. c. Your friend's opinions. You likely choose your friends through compatible ideologies, or because they were a by-product of a similar environment. Since your pool of data (sample) which you determine neutrality is not representative of the population
Fig. 2
Your definition of neutrality is bias. The internet—since it incorporates a much larger sample (or possibility the entire population)—would actually be a more accurate gauge of neutrality.
2ND: I agree with you that strong liberal/conservative opinions seem to be over-represented. Since the internet is voluntary response, it means only people who are highly invested in politics—and therefore high chance of being partisan—are making comments on political threads.
However, your conclusion of liberal bias is due to an availability bias. If I assume you are a conservative (since you are complaining about liberals) then all liberal opinions tend to stick out because: a. more of the opinions appear liberal since more of them actually are "liberal" according too your own sense of bias neutrality (see Fig 3).
Fig. 3
b. The outliers to the left appear even further away from your neutrality. Conservative outliers appear less outlandish since they are closer to you (even if you can recognize them as being Conservative) Since the strong liberals tend to stand out as being more strongly bias you tend to remember them more. This is an Availability Heuristic because you can recall them better (since they were more extreme).
The internet since it embodies, possibly the largest sample size imaginable, is perhaps the least bias media in the world. Now since some people dont use the internet (i.e. My grandparents who are conservative) and some people weigh in more (cooperations with money, political activists) their would be a conceivable bias. But like I said, the sample is as close to the population as imaginable. Cooperations actually have an equal say on a forum as a human, because it is free for everyone (money does not apply) something I can not say about television media.
The internet since it incorporates so many people and because this sample of views originates from the population of the world, all points in the internet curve must exist under the population curve. [note: when I drew your opinion curve some points existed outside out the population curve this was intended for illustrative purposes as your curve was two small to see otherwise]
Fig. 4
The internet—containing so much of the population's opinions—exhibits a local neutrality almost identical to the global neutrality, since the size of the sample and population are very similar. What I mean by local neutrality is the neutrality exhibited within that group sample. The larger the sample size the more likely the sample is representative of the population, and the local neutrality becomes a more valid indicator of global neutrality. Since the internet is one of the largest possible samples, it is the most accurate indicator of the true population's neutrality.
Lets take at a smaller sample. FoxNews which I represented by the right green curve in Fig. 4 is "Fair and Balanced"™ in a local sense, since all of its ~1000 contributors contribute their views to form the sample's neutrality. However, the sample of reporters is not random. Fox attracts conservative reporters and opinions since most of their viewers are conservative. Fox's corespondents likely base their political ideology off of available sources (i.e. Their conservative Co-workers). Fox's viewers likely base their own neutrality gauges off of Fox, who tries to give their viewer the conservative opinions they demand (thus feeding off of each other.) The feed-back of viewers and the network/corespondents furthers the idea of political bias, since people get a larger (tho equally bias) sample to base their neutrality gauge on. This creates a divide between the various news networks and viewers, which decreases the communication (the access of conservatives to moderate-liberal arguments) and prevents people from Balancing their neutrality gauge with opposing opinions. The same could be said about MSMBC and Liberals (Fig. 4 left green curve). An advantage of the internet, is that there is only One. All opinions are given equal status, and the sheer number of participants and speed of information ensures the people are less likely to close off themselves from opposing opinions. On the internet 1 Billion get to base their neutrality off of each other instead of just 1000 agreeable network contributors. However segmentation of the internet into sites, does restrict complete free access. Idealogical clicks still form within forums, and certain forums (@OP perhaps the ones you visited) will invariably contain a local bias due to a smaller sample. A great example of this would be a really conservative forum run by Fox, which only FoxConservatives would post on. Because of the belief that this Fox run Forum was indifferently conservative, mild liberals would probably stay away. The occasional Ultra-Liberal, however, would make a outrageous post to intentionally upset the status quo. *This would cause an availability-bias since the Conservatives posters would remember the Crazy-Liberals post, because it upset their "neutral" discussion, while the moderate-liberal didn't actually balence to the forum's local neutrality curve.* Within this segmentation, there is bias in the internet. However, since the internet contains thousands of forums, which are posted by the largest sample of the population, it all averages out to be very neutral media. Just as the TV news media averages out to be more neutral than the individual networks.
Originally, the Center Green curve in Fig 4. was supposed to be CNN. I guess it still could be... but I rather repurpose it.
Now imagine the center curve is a random sample, such as the Gallup Poll. Unlike news network corespondents they were chosen randomly from the population. Because of random selection, the Poll's neutrality gauge is representative of the actual population. However, note that polls never actually contain the whole population. Samples are only samples of the population. A Gallup Poll sample size—though accurate to ±4%—pales in size when compared to the internet. Problems with polls is that they often can have misleading questions which can represent bias of the organization giving the poll. For instance: Poll 1: In light of Obama recent mishandling of the horrifying Gulf Oil Disaster, do you approve of him? y/n Poll 2: Do you approve of Obama's handling of the recent Gulf Oil Spill? y/n Poll 3: Considering Obama's successful halt of job loss, is the Oil Spill a important concern? y/n Obviously, 2 of these imaginary polls contain bias. An other issue polls are only targeted to single issues, whereas the internet can contain everyone's opinions, from "24" cancellation to Israel. To my knowledge, Gallup has never issued asked:
but the internet has. The biggest problem with the internet is that it is so huge, it is almost impossible to quantify. Because it represents a more of the population it should be assumed as more neutral representing, but it is impossible for me or the OP to know its true bias.
@OP It is likely that more of the world appears liberal to you, but remember only half of the world can be liberal and half conservative. If some people change their mind (lets say everyone suddenly agrees abortion is bad) then the mean opinion would shift with this change. Abortion would cease being a liberal/conservative specifier—since no one would disagree with the issue—and the mean (neutral) opinion would therefore be anti-abortion. It is likely that you have a conservative outlook. You have based your sense of neutrality on that conservative outlook, and therefor more of the world would appear as liberal (Fig 3). But, we don't actually know the global neutrality. If we collected everyone and linearized their philosophies into Conservative/Liberal, you could turn out to be Left of the mean (as illustrated in Fig 5)
Fig 5. Since we don't know the actual global neutrality due to limited sample, you could hypothetically be liberal.
Until then, it is ok to call networks liberal/conservative or web sites as left/rightist. But the internet as a whole, considering it is possibly the largest sample of opinions ever, is as close to global mean as possible.
Final Note: @OP: You may consider yourself as neutral (or maybe even slightly liberal) I assumed you were a conservative, but my graphs and examples should still apply if you can admit to even the slightest bias on your local opinions as opposed to the global mean, regardless of directionality (left/right).
Please don't flame me for being a liberal. I recently changed from conservative to liberal (if you want to call it that since I lack most morality) If this thread was called "Conservative Internet" I would be saying the same things (tho my graphs would be reversed). Also, don't take offense at the attack of FoxNews, I used it b/c i figured you were a conservative. I watch FoxNews and MSMBC each 30% of the time and CNN 40%. I meant it when I said, "The same [about Fox] could be said about MSMBC," it should.
gg
Edit: Wow I didn't realize how long this took me. So many post between me and the OP. I hope I didn't break up any discussion.
Way too much effort put into a pretty unscientific argument. The internet doesn't encompass all people so it is naturally biased toward the demographic that spend their time on it. Also, the number of people that believe one thing or another doesn't have any affect whatsoever on where "neutral" lies. If you have one million people that believe "-1" and 50 people that believe "+1", then neutral is still "0". Likewise, if there are more liberals on the internet than conservatives, it does not suggest that these people are actually neutral, but only liberals in the limited perception of conservatives.
The problem at the heart of all of this is ultimately what one defines as "liberal" or "conservative". It's not as if these are definite labels with real definitions as they apply to political viewpoints. Personally, I think that more often than not, they're misused and misinterpreted, which is what leads to half of the arguments between the two sides...
Debating [you] on the topic of [economics] is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon — it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory.
I have no problem with a difference in opinion - however when you show some blatant misunderstanding a topic, I don't know why I would debate you.
I'll go ahead and give you whatever respect I can gather. I'm sure you're a good guy in your life. You go about and people like you and they give you hugs. But, for anybody with a basis on economics, you're just a guy on the internet who links to some sites without really understanding the content.
If I were a creationist, I could start linking phony URLs regarding evolution. A scientist who reads my thread shrugs it off because I clearly have no understanding of the topic I'm trying to bring up based on the fact that I would most likely not use the proper terms which would definitely give him a hint that I may not be capable of having a decent discussion regarding evolutionary biology. Said scientist may even take a potshot at me!
I could go back to things I know and talk about guns or I can get angry at the scientist and taunt him into answering to me.
Do you actually think that the 7.8 or 8.5 trillion figures are relevant?
If so, what does the 8.5 trillion dollars represent? (Research this one, you'll learn something!!)
Now that you've done the research, do you agree that using the 8.5 trillion dollars figure, while it does exist, is actually rather irrelevant to the current state of affairs?
With the previous question answered, do you think it's just disingenuous to bring up the figure out based on ignorance?
Was it correct to bring it up as "one bill" when clearly many of those decisions were made separately, some of them before and others after the current administration?
If you were to argue again, would you still use the 8.5 trillion figure or you would go ahead and find an actual figure?
Are you aware that economists (not you!!) agree that the bailout was actually a good decision and many of those companies have already paid off their bailout money?
Did you know that it's extremely likely that if we hadn't had that bailout, we would be significantly worse off with the death of those companies and all the jobs that would have been lost?
Please, you do so have such a problem with a difference of opinion, or you would be so hostile right now.
AND your not, some random guy? High ground is not your advantage here and never was. You have as much say on the topic as I do, learn that little fact. ENOUGH with the internet snide comments, it's not needed.
Wait, your still stuck on the term bill? Do you even realize that part of the bailout was a bill? Are you that petty you want to play Nazi whatever now? That's not a good sign of a argument. Your little scientist argument is flawed in that one, in a debate it really matters wither your the president or a high school dropout. Your status is so irrelevant to the CONTENT of the argument. Two, if the scientist was to take a potshot, thats called a fallacy and KILLS arguments no matter how strong, you DON'T go there. Wither you actually used proper terms or not depends on language usage, hint hint not all words mean the same in context. Point is to talk in terms everyone understands, and I'm sure that they would have better maturity to not go where your at (I would know).
Wait what, you think I'm taunting you? lol if your hinting at that, but if not I don't get the last remark has anything to do here.
Wow, I could really pull my hair out at this point with you. It represents what amounts to fiscal irresponsible on part of the democratic party ( which is contrast to you saying that Conservatives are more fiscally irresponsible then liberal), but the point I made was they where about the same making it such a moot point. I don't believe you even care about the past argument with your current attitude towards this difference.
Not irrelevant to what I was talking about, so do keep up with the conversation, instead of pulling old internet argument tricks.
Wow yes or no questions, well that really should speak for itself as to where your at.
Not going to touch this one with you. (ignorance please)
Term of speak, I've said this already I'm not repeating myself to you.
It IS an actual figure, one I mistook for something else you are not getting around this. You seem to be hung around that I wasn't just talking out of my behind.
She says it shouldn't be done again, but wouldn't that question with it was right to to do it in the fist place (I do know what she stated in the interview about thinking it was the right thing to do)? Kinda calls into question what economists are you talking about. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/business/july-dec09/fdic_11-13.html
Its not the place of the government to tell an institution your to big to fail, it will not happen again. I certainly do not want my tax payer money to support business that cannot make it. I'm not the only one with this opinion either. I beg to differ on it being worse.
On July 06 2010 06:54 oBlit wrote: I do not consider anything the government gives to me increasing my liberty. The less they infringe on my life the better.
I'm sorry we the people who aren't you wanted government-provided laws to protect our liberty from douchebags, and government-provided roads to promote our freedom to travel, and government-provided regulations to enhance our freedom to breathe air that isn't toxic and eat food that isn't poison. If we ever have a new government, we'll make sure to get your OK before making the country a good place to live.
'Infringe' indeed... your life depends on the government in a dozen ways.
Fortunately, liberals like yourself use emotion instead of logic in arguments. All roads in the country are the state's responsibility to keep up. I never said that the government should not tax in a way to support the basic responsibilities afforded to it in the constitution.
The good thing about our government is that the Fed is supposed to have a limited number of things that it is supposed to do. The states have free reign, or are supposed to, on everything else. Therefore, if you live in a state and do not like what that state is doing, you are FREE to leave and move to another state. For instance, the failing public healthcare in Mass. It is bankrupting the state and the citizens are free to leave it they wish.
Unfortunately, our federal government is now doing things that they are not constitutionally allowed to do such as universal healthcare. Now the entire country will be forced to bear the burden of unfunded liabilities that entitlement programs produce. No where in the constitution is any branch of the government given the authority to do that. Congressmen will even go so far as to say that it doesn't matter if the constitution allows it or not.
There are many things that I support that the government should do based on their responsibilities. However, I will never support entitlement programs intended to bankrupt the country and keep those in power in power.
The worst part is that things like medicaid, welfare, etc keeps low education people in place. Welfare is what keeps people down, waiting on their handout. Liberals, those who want more from the government, don't understand that what the government takes now will only increase over time. It is the only way to fund their programs
Wait, your still stuck on the term bill? Do you even realize that part of the bailout was a bill? Are you that petty you want to play Nazi whatever now? That's not a good sign of a argument.
I invoke the Godwin law and you instantaneously lose! ^^
Your little scientist argument is flawed in that one, in a debate it really matters wither your the president or a high school dropout. Your status is so irrelevant to the CONTENT of the argument. Two, if the scientist was to take a potshot, thats called a fallacy and KILLS arguments no matter how strong, you DON'T go there.
1+1=2 and you're fat. Therefore 1+1 doesn't = 2. You said things that were untrue. I corrected you and I was somewhat rude to you. You were still factually incorrect. I'm sorry I made you sad and didn't follow the rules of a proper debate. Don't fool yourself into believing that you can dismiss something in an improper debate because of an ad hominem "logical fallacy" though. I would lose points in a debate with judges but between you and me, if I say something that's true and proceed to say horrible things about your mother, it doesn't change the truth of the previous statement.
Wither you actually used proper terms or not depends on language usage, hint hint not all words mean the same in context. Point is to talk in terms everyone understands, and I'm sure that they would have better maturity to not go where your at (I would know).
Okay. Except you were flat out wrong so!!
[Skipping some useless blah blah]
It IS an actual figure, one I mistook for something else you are not getting around this. You seem to be hung around that I wasn't just talking out of my behind.
It does not represent "money spent" or "money to be spent". Look into it and you'll understand why it's not a relevant figure.
She says it shouldn't be done again, but wouldn't that question with it was right to to do it in the fist place (I do know what she stated in the interview about thinking it was the right thing to do)? Kinda calls into question what economists are you talking about. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/business/july-dec09/fdic_11-13.html
1) Quote one person that says something back before we saw the benefits. 2) Invalidate everything else.
Doesn't work like that. Sorry.
Its not the place of the government to tell an institution your to big to fail, it will not happen again. I certainly do not want my tax payer money to support business that cannot make it. I'm not the only one with this opinion either. I beg to differ on it being worse.
big post lets see if you want to nitpick again.
You're just arguing for free market basically. I think your wrong alongside basically most economists in the world purely based on the fact that all economical powers in the world are pretty strongly regulated.
You THINK it's not the place of the government to tell an institution that it's too big to fail... Fortunately, you're not the one who takes those decisions or many companies would have died off and the economy would have to recover significantly slower because of you.
We can keep going if you want, if you want to talk keep it to the facts. I'm having to weed down your posts pretty badly.
PS: May want to consider private messages to continue. This argument is obviously visual pollution. Also I'm not even enjoying it whatsoever. I don't enjoy debating economics, especially not with people who don't seem to understand it very well.
On July 06 2010 06:54 oBlit wrote: I do not consider anything the government gives to me increasing my liberty. The less they infringe on my life the better.
I'm sorry we the people who aren't you wanted government-provided laws to protect our liberty from douchebags, and government-provided roads to promote our freedom to travel, and government-provided regulations to enhance our freedom to breathe air that isn't toxic and eat food that isn't poison. If we ever have a new government, we'll make sure to get your OK before making the country a good place to live.
'Infringe' indeed... your life depends on the government in a dozen ways.
The laws that protect your liberty were set up when the U.S government was created and those are the laws we should adhere to. obviously some changes are necessary but even those seem to be blown out of proportion. Once again this is a service that has been with our government for a long time and shouldn't even be brought up, You raising this point just lowers your credibility because it raises the question of how much you actually know. Why do we need regulations to "Enhance" our freedom, The best way for us to not get poisoned or toxic air is by letting that company go bankrupt; If your business is making bad decisions you will suffer in the wallet and in the minds of the people, don't have the government hold everyones hand because a few are idiots. You are right, when we have a new government you will be asking for his opinion as well as everyone else because that is how our government was set up the first time.
On July 05 2010 19:35 Reach_UK wrote: The internet has a liberal bias because it is predominatly youthful. Young people, particularly now, are mostly socialist liberal with varying degrees of conservatism within that ideological tradition.
Are TL users generall liberal? Again, TL users are young so probably. Also TL users are mostly international. The USA is the only place in the world where economic liberalism has been sold to the lower classes
Basically this (demographics). Not many Americans realise how far right American politics is compared to the rest of the western world.
Answer is simple. Liberals are loud and cry for change against the status quo. Liberal people are never satisfied. Liberals wish to force their ideas on everyone else and aren't happy until everyone follows their lifestyle.
Conservatives are not loud unless threatened by liberal ideas being forced upon their livestyles. It's why you rarely see huge conservative protesting but constantly see liberal groups up in arms. The exception is right now because of course we have a socialist in office and our country is economically dying and our foreign policy is largely ineffective. Things are threatening the conservative mindset so you're seeing average people up in arms.
On July 05 2010 19:35 Reach_UK wrote: The internet has a liberal bias because it is predominatly youthful. Young people, particularly now, are mostly socialist liberal with varying degrees of conservatism within that ideological tradition.
Are TL users generall liberal? Again, TL users are young so probably. Also TL users are mostly international. The USA is the only place in the world where economic liberalism has been sold to the lower classes
Basically this (demographics). Not many Americans realise how far right American politics is compared to the rest of the western world.
(Spoken from a conservative viewpoint)
I was about to say this. Example: Socialism is accepted in most of Europe, in America some people don't even want to hear it.
Having read your arguments, I think that the issue why angelic is being so contentious is because Dj hasn't elaborated on why those articles, to his opinion, illustrate that the government spending that has been done is a good thing. It would be in the better interest of both sides if Dj were to do so, since angelic does not have a good idea of what arguments Dj is using, thus not providing further fuel to a conducive debate. This is the reason why you two have been going around in circles, even if you both agree that government spending as a whole is an essential part of keeping an economy running, even if you disagree on the scale and means by which it has been done.
I invoke the Godwin law and you instantaneously lose! ^^
And it goes right over your head on me making that point.
You said things that were untrue. I corrected you and I was somewhat rude to you. You were still factually incorrect. I'm sorry I made you sad and didn't follow the rules of a proper debate. Don't fool yourself into believing that you can dismiss something in an improper debate because of an ad hominem "logical fallacy" though. I would lose points in a debate with judges but between you and me, if I say something that's true and proceed to say horrible things about your mother, it doesn't change the truth of the previous statement.
Smells like a troll comment, it really does, one because of the snide remarks in it, and secondly you have no grounds to go after somebody personally, this is in regards to whither your right or not. It doesn't have to change it, but all it does is say your a bigot, not worth anyones time. You can still be right and lose an argument.
On the grounds of me saying something that was untrue, WHAT DID I EVER SAY, I don't recall you even bringing that up until now, hmmm. I have never had somebody try to defend this at all, your the first.
Okay. Except you were flat out wrong so!!
My lord, you are the classic internet person. Simple words because I"m not spending anymore time on something so useless, GET OVER IT.
It does not represent "money spent" or "money to be spent". Look into it and you'll understand why it's not a relevant figure.
You are going to cause me to have a brain tumor. You really are. That money is good as spent, and don't kid yourself it is. It keeps increasing, and hasn't stopped yet.
1)Quote one person that says something back before we saw the benefits. 2) Invalidate everything else.
Doesn't work like that. Sorry.
Wait, so 8 months ago is not good enough for you? We had improvements in 8 months I thought companies where still struggling...
So wheres your economists at, you know when you avoid the question you don't get to attack somebody else, unless your trying to troll. So I'll say this, post your sources or just quit posting, I"m tired of this game with you.
Don't forget you made a vague statement without support also... fallen into your own irony again.
You're just arguing for free market basically. I think your wrong alongside basically most economists in the world purely based on the fact that all economical powers in the world are pretty strongly regulated.
I really really at this point care less for what you think.
You THINK it's not the place of the government to tell an institution that it's too big to fail... Fortunately, you're not the one who takes those decisions or many companies would have died off and the economy would have to recover significantly slower because of you.
I really could snipe you by saying the same thing. Good thing I have standards. Did you not read the part about others saying the same thing, oh like most of the American population?
We can keep going if you want, if you want to talk keep it to the facts. I'm having to weed down your posts pretty badly.
At this point, your trolling/flaming. I'm not going to set through this with you. I'm more then fine if you want to calm down. You don't deal with what I say, you post snide/personal attacks while ignoring the content of my posts.
PS: May want to consider private messages to continue. This argument is obviously visual pollution. Also I'm not even enjoying it whatsoever. I don't enjoy debating economics, especially not with people who don't seem to understand it very well.
I will not, because if you want to get more nasty your not worth the time, I"m not going to post something that couldn't be read by others. I wonder who actually went wrong here. I really don't care if you don't enjoy it, that's irrelevant and I don't even know why you directed that at me.
Ciryandor,
I really don't get this guy, he puts a lot into making it snide and personal which makes it harder to pick out content, drops points I make, and doesn't deal with them. Tries to call me out on things, but yet doesn't even follow his own standards. He still hasn't explain his behavior and why he needs to justify it.
My original point was that both parties had just about the same problems as another, i.e. in the form of spending there is examples of both being fiscally irresponsible so calling one side more then the other is a moot point. Now that I got bogged down in mudslinging, it's harder to articulate that point, when they only capitalize on mistakes like it's some godsend.
Big post, different format, lets see if I miss anything.
Right or left on the spectrum are basically irrelevant. All political discussions boil down to 3 characters.
1) He who knows better. (The loud-mouthed liberal/conservative who are sure Obama is the best/worst)
2) He who doesn't feel like it is anyone's business (The true libertarians/radical lefties who recognize that as soon as the government says who we can and can't marry, they can just as easily say what we can or can't do otherwise)
3) People who are busy having lives and recognize they aren't well-informed (these are theoretical people, none have ever been maintained in captivity)
On July 06 2010 10:52 Sleight wrote: Right or left on the spectrum are basically irrelevant. All political discussions boil down to 3 characters.
1) He who knows better. (The loud-mouthed liberal/conservative who are sure Obama is the best/worst)
2) He who doesn't feel like it is anyone's business (The true libertarians/radical lefties who recognize that as soon as the government says who we can and can't marry, they can just as easily say what we can or can't do otherwise)
3) People who are busy having lives and recognize they aren't well-informed (these are theoretical people, none have ever been maintained in captivity)
Cheers!
Yes, sad is that 99% of the #1's don't even realize what their arguments amount to - a claim over someone else's (property). This is regarded as normal and civil, because democracy is put on a pedestal, as the ultimate way of resolving conflicts of use. "We should do this"/"We shouldn't do this" = "I support forcing and coercing everyone to do/not do this"
A bit of honesty would make a lot of politics a non-issue.
The point there is, if he doesn't elucidate it properly and ignores my remark, it's his failure and weakness in argumentation that he cannot even show what his point is. Doesn't necessarily make him a troll per se, but just makes him look and read like one.
With regards to your point, of course, any government and opposition anywhere has mutual interests with the businesses and people who fund not just their election campaigns, but also the tax coffers, especially if those will seek to dodge their fiscal responsibility to government. Therefore it is imperative for citizens to know and complain when such deals are being put in place for corporate benefit w/out trickle-down effects or positive externalities.
@ Sleight You're not helping the discussion much, especially with your enumeration that characterizes all political/societal discussion as non-productive/trivial. To just point out a minor issue with that, I would read 3 as being contradictory, except for the simplistic argument that "I don't care because I don't know.", with those busy having lives not even having the time/inclination/capability to recognize their lack of faculty in the first place because they lack a benchmark of experience or knowledge to compare to. Also, which category do you belong to in your classification anyway, now that you've weighed in on it?
Alright angelic, I give up here - make of it what you will... If you feel it's some kind of moral victory, so be it, but I'm sure you understand that this back and forth is boring as hell to me, hence why I've (obviously) been trying to avoid it despite your walls of text.
You say I don't deal with your points which is true because I don't care to, not here anyway.
If you want to talk I'll do it on AIM or MSN @ djzapznub and djzapz at hotmail.com respectively. I would really like for you to come. If you can't come on those, I'll hit you up on whatever platform you want and we can do this. I'll be nice and everything and you won't need to make posts which contain 75% of criticism of how I don't address what you want me to. (Because I'm dodging)
So get over yourself, you've been trying so hard to argue with someone who doesn't care for a such a stretched out argument with you. Especially not on a forum because answering to an huge text is BORING as HELL to me. Especially when it's in a thread which doesn't directly relate to the debate you were trying to have.
Also, stop flattering yourself saying my arguments suck. I obviously haven't made a single argument. I basically gave my opinion You brought up source from people I disagree with, I could dig around for sources of people who disagree with the people in your source but you can find people who believe ANYTHING on the Internet. If it's the truth you care about, you won't find one in economics, you'll find people who disagree. A LOT of economists agree that the bailout was a positive force.
Is it a proof of anything? No, that would be an ad populum logical fallacy. Is it worth considering that they may be right? Yes!! Can I be wrong and could the woman in the webpage you linked be right? Sure... And maybe God exists too... but if that were true I'd be dumbfounded because it doesn't seem like it at all if you look at the evidence, as I see it.
So there, add me. If you want to post the conversation here afterward for whatever reason, feel free to.
PS: The 8.5 trillion figure isn't all money that's actually going to go out!! That's why it's not a good figure to bring up. PS: The economy wouldn't fix itself very well, whether you believe it or not. You need to understand what all of those things are and to say it's all useless is ridiculous. EVERYONE knows that it's not 100% BS. You go by the assumption that all of it is bad. I think that most of it is good and most of it won't ever be spent. Surely you know about politics and "commited" money.
There are plenty of reasons to believe in conservative economics. Especially with the response most of the world gave the US in the last G20.
The whole left right thing is a vast simplification and isn't good for anything but spoon feeding the zombies.
I suppose you could say I stand for very conservative economics and super liberal civil liberties... I live in Texas too. People of all walks of life are everywhere, but there are more zombies than people. lol.
Recent research has shown that more women are "on the internet" than men. I think it's also safe to say that the average age of a net user is significantly lower than the average age of the population. So there might be more "liberal" information on the internet, but I feel that it's an epic waste of time to attempt to sum up a billion large demographic.
On July 06 2010 11:25 Djzapz wrote: PS: The 8.5 trillion figure isn't all money that's actually going to go out!! That's why it's not a good figure to bring up. PS: The economy wouldn't fix itself very well, whether you believe it or not. You need to understand what all of those things are and to say it's all useless is ridiculous. EVERYONE knows that it's not 100% BS. You go by the assumption that all of it is bad. I think that most of it is good and most of it won't ever be spent. Surely you know about politics and "commited" money.
While idc about your little post argument with angelw/e I am going to point out that the economy will fix itself. Letting the weak businesses die and the strong ones replace them is a great way to start the recovery. The economy will fail with government handing out handicaps such as cafe standards and then bailing out business's like chrysler (to whom all of the equity goes to the unions).
On July 06 2010 11:39 Sadist wrote: ...... 85 for Mississippi damn ;\
I used to flaunt that chart around because it amused me and I figured it looked true (really does look real doesn't it) but the sources are kind of shady and my not be good, so I would be skeptical, even if it's hilarious
On July 06 2010 11:25 Djzapz wrote: PS: The 8.5 trillion figure isn't all money that's actually going to go out!! That's why it's not a good figure to bring up. PS: The economy wouldn't fix itself very well, whether you believe it or not. You need to understand what all of those things are and to say it's all useless is ridiculous. EVERYONE knows that it's not 100% BS. You go by the assumption that all of it is bad. I think that most of it is good and most of it won't ever be spent. Surely you know about politics and "commited" money.
While idc about your little post argument with angelw/e I am going to point out that the economy will fix itself. Letting the weak businesses die and the strong ones replace them is a great way to start the recovery. The economy will fail with government handing out handicaps such as cafe standards and then bailing out business's like chrysler (to whom all of the equity goes to the unions).
Economies crash HARD if they're not handled properly though so it's important to be careful when they're dropping.
On July 06 2010 11:43 Djzapz wrote:Economies crash HARD if they're not handled properly though so it's important to be careful when they're dropping.
That might well be true, but the thing is - nobody knows what it means to "handle an economy properly". Keynesian economics is just as likely to make things worse as it is to make things better, and many would argue it never makes anything better, it just delays the inevitable and makes it worse when it hits.
If we could handle economies, sure, but we have no idea what we're doing.
On July 06 2010 11:43 Djzapz wrote:Economies crash HARD if they're not handled properly though so it's important to be careful when they're dropping.
That might well be true, but the thing is - nobody knows what it means to "handle an economy properly". Keynesian economics is just as likely to make things worse as it is to make things better, and many would argue it never makes anything better, it just delays the inevitable and makes it worse when it hits.
If we could handle economies, sure, but we have no idea what we're doing.
We know a bit more than "nothing" and the Keynesians are the least wacky
On July 06 2010 11:47 Djzapz wrote: We know a bit more than "nothing" and the Keynesians are the least wacky
That image doesn't support a single thing you claimed. Its based on models that are themselves controversial and not completely supported. Keynesian economics today isn't even something Keynes himself would have supported, and Friedman pretty conclusively proved that most of the time governments have intervened to "fix" an economy they've either done nothing or made it worse.
[edit] Not to mention the Bush tax cuts were pure Keynesian economics as well.
[edit2] Why on earth are the images different, wtf.
On July 06 2010 11:47 Djzapz wrote: We know a bit more than "nothing" and the Keynesians are the least wacky
That image doesn't support a single thing you claimed. Its based on models that are themselves controversial and not completely supported. Keynesian economics today isn't even something Keynes himself would have supported, and Friedman pretty conclusively proved that most of the time governments have intervened to "fix" an economy they've either done nothing or made it worse.
[edit] Not to mention the Bush tax cuts were pure Keynesian economics as well.
[edit2] Why on earth are the images different, wtf.
Bush's tax cuts might've been badly applied keynesian economics O_O I never learned "lower the rich's taxes when the economy is doing good", that'd be retarded.
On July 06 2010 11:55 Djzapz wrote:Bush's tax cuts might've been badly applied keynesian economics O_O I never learned "lower the rich's taxes when the economy is doing good", that'd be retarded.
It actually wouldn't, for one.
Secondly, Keynesian economics now means running deficit budgets to stimulate economies in recession. Tax cuts accomplish this just as well (arguably better) than government spending programs, and tax cuts are much easier to get rid of later, which proper Keynesianism would require.
Bush's tax cuts actually worked too, although I'd argue they just pushed the recession back and it combined with the financial meltdown into the monster we ended up with.
[edit] Hell, compared with lowering taxes across the board or disproportionately in favor of poor people, cutting taxes at the highest rates is flat out better economically.
A little more about the 8.5T figure and the link, the FED isn't part of the US budget, it's a bank which is publically owned but it's a separate entity from the US treasury. The FED gave out 1.5T in loans, that 1.5 trillions is essentially money zapped into existence in the form of domestic debt... it's not even part of the national debt but it's included in the 13 trillion figure at the bottom. It's sall low risk short term loans, magic numbers basically. That's debt that if not paid creates inflation - in the middle of a potential deflationary crisis, it's not a concern. Also this includes the stimulus which has nothing to do with the bailout.... Also here somehow "student loans" count as bailouts.
It actually wouldn't, for one.
Secondly, Keynesian economics now means running deficit budgets to stimulate economies in recession. Tax cuts accomplish this just as well (arguably better) than government spending programs, and tax cuts are much easier to get rid of later, which proper Keynesianism would require.
Bush's tax cuts actually worked too, although I'd argue they just pushed the recession back and it combined with the financial meltdown into the monster we ended up with.
[edit] Hell, compared with lowering taxes across the board or disproportionately in favor of poor people, cutting taxes at the highest rates is flat out better economically.
Keynesian economics doesn't say you should run your deficit ridiculously high by LOWERING taxes WAY too much. Saying that Bush's tax cuts worked is ridiculous. They accomplished something but the backfire was significantly greater than the gains.
Also: "Tax cuts accomplish this just as well (arguably better) than government spending programs"
Find me someone who said that and isn't a die-hard republican. It's flat out not true. Even Reagan realized that and had to raise taxes after seeing how bad it was to slash taxes so much for the rich.
On July 06 2010 12:01 Yurebis wrote: cutting taxes period is better economically since people aren't robbed of their economical choices
You're saying cutting taxes because it SEEMS better for individuals. Tax cuts, bam you have an additional $200. Looks fun but your country suffers. You suffer too, you just don't realize it. If you cut taxes too much, your country gets messed up.
As expected, this subject will soon brings us a lot of bans.
The answer to the OP is so obvious, young people tend to be liberal because, well, they are young. They don't have old values, beliefs and prejudice to affect their judgement so they tend to be more open to new ideas. And because of that same reason there are more young people on the Internet and therefore a higher liberal presence.
On July 06 2010 12:04 Djzapz wrote:You're saying cutting taxes because it SEEMS better for individuals. Tax cuts, bam you have an additional $200. Looks fun but your country suffers. You suffer too, you just don't realize it. If you cut taxes too much, your country gets messed up.
On July 06 2010 12:04 Djzapz wrote:You're saying cutting taxes because it SEEMS better for individuals. Tax cuts, bam you have an additional $200. Looks fun but your country suffers. You suffer too, you just don't realize it. If you cut taxes too much, your country gets messed up.
This is identically true for spending programs.
Like the military except that doesn't come back in any form 99% of the time, right? There are plenty of spending programs that are awful and maybe we could cut some taxes and get rid of those or at least spend significantly less on those. It's hard to make cuts though when the taxes are already made so low given the amount of services there have been for a LONG time - hard to get rid of all of it over night even if you don't like it.
On July 06 2010 12:01 Yurebis wrote: cutting taxes period is better economically since people aren't robbed of their economical choices
You're saying cutting taxes because it SEEMS better for individuals. Tax cuts, bam you have an additional $200. Looks fun but your country suffers. You suffer too, you just don't realize it. If you cut taxes too much, your country gets messed up.
Is the country not just an aggregation of many individuals? Then what bad can come out of something other than?
By the country suffers, surely you mean "that group of individuals who support stealing from others to get what they want"
On July 06 2010 12:07 CrimsonLotus wrote: As expected, this subject will soon brings us a lot of bans.
I will stop, been banned more often than i'd like. Tight regulation here...
On July 06 2010 11:55 Djzapz wrote:Bush's tax cuts might've been badly applied keynesian economics O_O I never learned "lower the rich's taxes when the economy is doing good", that'd be retarded.
It actually wouldn't, for one.
Secondly, Keynesian economics now means running deficit budgets to stimulate economies in recession. Tax cuts accomplish this just as well (arguably better) than government spending programs, and tax cuts are much easier to get rid of later, which proper Keynesianism would require.
That's just simply factually false. Tax cuts are THE WORST, THE WORST tool of a stimulus program. The multiplier is almost 1 for tax cuts. Romer detailed this in her reports to congress or hell find another non-chicago economist if you want to find support for my claim. The stimulus works because it is guaranteed demand. Tax cuts for the wealthy do not necessarily result increased demand.
edit: Christ I hope you guys get some stuff sourced from the literature rather than gop.org or Fox News.
Pure Keynesian economics involves projects and programs. It's funny how the only infrastructure project on the scale necessary to get us out of the depression and politically palpable was preparing to enter into World War II.
Is the country not just an aggregation of many individuals? Then what bad can come out of something other than?
By the country suffers, surely you mean "that group of individuals who support stealing from others to get what they want"
The country is an aggregation of many individuals who oftentimes cooperate in order to get what they want. You pay the government, the government makes you roads. Rich people pay more taxes than the poor, this allows the poor to buy the rich's products. Without the US supporting you, you most likely wouldn't be as comfortable. Progressive taxes are key to making an economical country, economical countries sustain their citizen.
Some people can't work. Arguably they steal a tiny percentage of your money, get a disability check. Because of you, a disabled person can live an OK life. In other countries, this isn't as true. Luckily, like all of the other first world countries, you have a progressive tax system. A powerful economical country has never been seen without this system.
Some people abuse the system but this happens in all systems. Unfortunately some people sit on their hands and collect welfare. A great many of those are single mothers who make good use of this service. Personally I'm glad that a tiny percentage of my taxes goes to help single mothers. It's sad that there are people who benefit from it but are just lazy.
I think it's sad that an extremely big portion of all of your paychecks goes to fund multiple wars in an extremely inefficient way...
Alone, you're nothing. Keep in mind, the US gave you everything you got. The US is the workframe which gave you the opportunity to become rich or at the very least live an above-average comfortable life. If you were born in Sierra-Leone, you would need to be significantly better of a person to be as successful as your regular american. You're lucky to have been raised in the US. You're lucky that people, in the past, have paid taxes in order to build a decent infrastructure.
On July 06 2010 11:57 kzn wrote: [edit] Hell, compared with lowering taxes across the board or disproportionately in favor of poor people, cutting taxes at the highest rates is flat out better economically.
A small part of me died inside. Even taking out all other considerations (morals etc), that argument is wrong in pretty much every respect. Link for you.
If you can't be bothered reading the link (as seems to happen..) the reason why cutting taxes on poor will have a larger effect on the economy is that poorer people spend a larger proportion of their income than richer people due to the nature of what they are buying (needs, rather than wants). Also: - Affects a larger proportion of your economy. (everything other than luxury items) - Poor peoples MPC is much higher, so a higher multiplyer effect - Demand for primary goods increases, as people have more money to spend
Regardless, like previously stated, cuts are generally not as good as government spending for stimulating the economy... as at least you can be sure the money damn well gets spent...
To answer the OPs original question: This thread has become devided (expectidly) and somewhat derailed by conservative/liberal discussion. Look at where the 'conservative' view points come from (not one from out side the US) and then look at where the 'liberal' view points are coming from (pretty much all outside the us).
In short: Yes. In actuality: No.
There are more ways to view the world than through 'liberal' or 'conservative' eyes. That and the 'left/right' scale barely even applies to economics (as there is so many different places you could 'spend big' or 'cut spending' that it just holds no real value to aggrigate them all) let alone to the political spectrum.
I'm not sure I understand how the word "bias" is being used here.
Greater numbers of liberals on the internet as opposed to conservatives? Well, that's kind of a hard question. What passes for "liberal" in the US is actually pretty conservative in Europe. And what passes for "conservative" in the US is considered pretty insane in most of Europe, just for an example.
Also, there aren't two equal sides to any political argument. If one side is supported by reality and the other isn't, and more people support the side supported by reality, that's not a "bias", that's just not being stupid. America is infected with this idea of false equivalency.
I'm not saying the "liberals" are on the side of reality or the reverse. I'm saying Americans' use of the word "bias" is extremely suspect.
Is the country not just an aggregation of many individuals? Then what bad can come out of something other than?
By the country suffers, surely you mean "that group of individuals who support stealing from others to get what they want"
The country is an aggregation of many individuals who oftentimes cooperate in order to get what they want.
voluntarily, most of the time, yes.
On July 06 2010 12:23 Djzapz wrote: You pay the government, the government makes you roads.
Why does it have to be the gunverment, and why does it have to take money without asking, and not do it voluntarily like any other entrepreneur?
On July 06 2010 12:23 Djzapz wrote: Rich people pay more taxes than the poor, this allows the poor to buy the rich's products.
And tax-cutting the rich would allow him to cut prices, allowing the poor to buy more junk. So what? A tax is a tax, taking money from the market and using it for some arbitrary end that may or may not turn to be somewhat useful to some of the taxpayers (always with added overhead of course).
On July 06 2010 12:23 Djzapz wrote: Without the US supporting you, you most likely wouldn't be as comfortable. Progressive taxes are key to making an economical country, economical countries sustain their citizen.
Why wouldn't I be more comfortable?
On July 06 2010 12:23 Djzapz wrote: Some people can't work. Arguably they steal a tiny percentage of your money, get a disability check. Because of you, a disabled person can live an OK life. In other countries, this isn't as true. Luckily, like all of the other first world countries, you have a progressive tax system. A powerful economical country has never been seen without this system.
That which is has no bearing on how it should be. If we were all monarchies still, it would make aristocracy no more deplorable to the ones who can envision a world without kings, ahead of their time.
On July 06 2010 12:23 Djzapz wrote: Some people abuse the system but this happens in all systems. Unfortunately some people sit on their hands and collect welfare. A great many of those are single mothers who make good use of this service. Personally I'm glad that a tiny percentage of my taxes goes to help single mothers. It's sad that there are people who benefit from it but are just lazy.
Well, when you have a direct incentive for people not to work... I'd say it's a bit predictable that people would be more likely to not work... if you know anything about human action...
On July 06 2010 12:23 Djzapz wrote: I think it's sad that an extremely big portion of all of your paychecks goes to fund multiple wars in an extremely inefficient way...
I think it's sad that the paychecks go anywhere but the employee's pocket period.
On July 06 2010 12:23 Djzapz wrote: Alone, you're nothing.
I agree.
On July 06 2010 12:23 Djzapz wrote: Keep in mind, the US gave you everything you got.
I disagree LOL
On July 06 2010 12:23 Djzapz wrote: The US is the workframe which gave you the opportunity to become rich or at the very least live an above-average comfortable life.
Assuming that by US you mean the US government, what workframe is that? You mean private property and laws wouldn't exist without the government? Well that's debatable, and I doubt you know anything about anarcho-capitalism, but I'm not going to bother trying to explain how it could work, too tired ATM, sorry.
On July 06 2010 12:23 Djzapz wrote: If you were born in Sierra-Leone, you would need to be significantly better of a person to be as successful as your regular american.
Maybe, but is it because of the government here? I think the standards of living in the US are this way despite what the government does, not thanks to it.
On July 06 2010 12:23 Djzapz wrote: You're lucky to have been raised in the US.
Okay.
On July 06 2010 12:23 Djzapz wrote: You're lucky that people, in the past, have paid taxes in order to build a decent infrastructure.
Infrastructure which could have been built voluntarily and more efficiently had people knew+tried.
Capitalism requires infrastructure to work. Certain standards and regulatory bodies like the SEC to make financial markets function. Hell, explain to me how you're going to deal with public goods?
You pay taxes to fund many of the public goods from which you directly/indirectly benefit. Also you pay so that an "impartial" arbiter than you have some control over (elections) maintains the monopoly of force rather than existing in a state of war with everyone. This facilitates economies of scale for many things.
If you can't be bothered reading the link (as seems to happen..) the reason why cutting taxes on poor will have a larger effect on the economy is that poorer people spend a larger proportion of their income than richer people due to the nature of what they are buying (needs, rather than wants). Also: - Affects a larger proportion of your economy. (everything other than luxury items) - Poor peoples MPC is much higher, so a higher multiplyer effect - Demand for primary goods increases, as people have more money to spend
Regardless, like previously stated, cuts are generally not as good as government spending for stimulating the economy... as at least you can be sure the money damn well gets spent...
This is true (especially in the short-term), but cutting taxes in the highest brackets typically generates more in gross tax revenue.
See also - Laffer curve (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve)
Why does it have to be the gunverment, and why does it have to take money without asking, and not do it voluntarily like any other entrepreneur?
People wouldn't give a sufficient amount of money to build an actual infrastructure. Trying that would certainly be disastrous. If you think otherwise you make huge assumptions about human nature.
And tax-cutting the rich would allow him to cut prices, allowing the poor to buy more junk. So what? A tax is a tax, taking money from the market and using it for some arbitrary end that may or may not turn to be somewhat useful to some of the taxpayers (always with added overhead of course).
Tax-cutting the rich doesn't affect the production costs and such. Lowering their taxes wouldn't directly affect their prices in a significant way.
Why wouldn't I be more comfortable?
What evidence do you have that a country without a fair amount of taxation can take off at all, it has never even come close to happen. In the US, you can get an OK job fairly easily, get a comfortable apartment or even a house. You get education easily. All of this comes from the taxes people paid before. If people were going "Free for all" like what you're advocating, it would be in the same state as all of the other countries which have tried to do that. Poor and underdeveloped. The countries who have tried flat taxes have done really badly if you care.
That which is has no bearing on how it should be. If we were all monarchies still, it would make aristocracy no more deplorable to the ones who can envision a world without kings, ahead of their time.
What are you suggesting?
I disagree LOL
Provided you were raised in the US, so little of what you have would have been so easy to reach if there wasn't a government taking money from people in order to make it work. If you don't want to pay taxes, go away. The only reason why you want to stay in the US is because it's a good place to live. WHY is it a good place to live? Because it was built to be a good place to live. It was built with taxes. Taxes which used to be a lot higher, btw.
Assuming that by US you mean the US government, what workframe is that? You mean private property and laws wouldn't exist without the government? Well that's debatable, and I doubt you know anything about anarcho-capitalism, but I'm not going to bother trying to explain how it could work, too tired ATM, sorry.
People who try to argue for any type of anarchy expect people to be better than they are. If you were to explain anarcho-capitalism, you would make a lot of assumptions about how to build an utopia. If it could work it would be wonderful but it can't.
Maybe, but is it because of the government here? I think the standards of living in the US are this way despite what the government does, not thanks to it.
Read the name. It's the United-States. That's a body. You're suggesting the standards of living spawned there out of thin air for the couple hundreds years you've been there? That's ridiculous. I'll state the obvious here. Your country's success is largely based on its governing body which made it quickly rise to be the most powerful country in the world. Your money represents a country. Not a bunch of people, not a landmass, but a body which is governed by a president which has taxed its people for a long, long time. It started well before the US was powerful, too.
Infrastructure which could have been built voluntarily and more efficiently had people knew+tried.
People don't know. And people obviously want others to pay for it. Everybody knows that. If a person makes $50,000 a year and some project requires 20 billions to be completed, $5000 is nothing, even $50,000 is nothing. It's foolish to expect people would chip in NEARLY enough. But I guess anarchists can distort human nature so it fits.
Ugh, why are we having an economic debate in a political thread, guys? How does this connect with the issue of certain demographics' representation on the Net?
@ Yurebis The infrastructure argument is not exactly well supported. Seriously, would you want to pay toll fees for every road you went through on your way to work, the sidewalks and parkways you walk on when you're out in the park? Infrastructure is sometimes loss leading, in that its benefits don't go back to the government in of itself.
@ Tax cuts vs Spending It's a philosophical issue of what role government should play, whether to direct it with its hand on things; or let those it represents do the deciding for them.
On July 06 2010 12:58 Sabu113 wrote: Capitalism requires infrastructure to work. Certain standards and regulatory bodies like the SEC to make financial markets function.
What happened to the world before the SEC existed? I'm asking because I don't know really. But I doubt whatever function it exerted couldn't have been operated by a private agency. Also, what is "function" in that context? Does a market have an objective ends or means? Some people might not want a financial market at all, so not having the SEC would be perfectly "functional", you see. May look like a non-sequitur, sorry.
On July 06 2010 12:58 Sabu113 wrote: Hell, explain to me how you're going to deal with public goods?
Short answer, privatize. Long answer... depends, what are those "public goods"? You mean goods owned by the government?
On July 06 2010 12:58 Sabu113 wrote: You pay taxes to fund many of the public goods from which you directly/indirectly benefit.
Why can't those goods be owned by someone if they're already owned by the government? And if the government is able to sustain itself monetarily (lol), why can't an entrepreneur?
On July 06 2010 12:58 Sabu113 wrote: Also you pay so that an "impartial" arbiter than you have some control over (elections) maintains the monopoly of force rather than existing in a state of war with everyone. This facilitates economies of scale for many things.
And why can't different people have different arbiters in charge of negotiating conflicts? That's what happens in the world scale. Different countries with different laws. Why hasn't the world market stopped "functioning"? Consistently, you must find that horrible, or recognize that it's possible to have you know, voluntary arbitration.
On July 06 2010 12:16 Sabu113 wrote:That's just simply factually false. Tax cuts are THE WORST, THE WORST tool of a stimulus program. The multiplier is almost 1 for tax cuts. Romer detailed this in her reports to congress or hell find another non-chicago economist if you want to find support for my claim. The stimulus works because it is guaranteed demand. Tax cuts for the wealthy do not necessarily result increased demand.
No. The Consumption Multiplier is less than 1 for tax cuts. This is precisely why it is better - you end up with more saving, thus more investment, thus you actually fix the recession instead of masking its symptoms.
Moreover, I can see you're one of the people who has been taken in by the hilariously flawed argument that stimulus spending somehow generates more GDP than was spent.
First of all, just think about it for a second. That is not physically possible. You cannot spend $100 and generate more than $100 in spending. IT CANNOT BE DONE.
Once you've realized how stupid the original claim is, you can investigate why it appears to be true. Here's why:
There are two ways you can fund a spending program. You can tax for the money required, or you can borrow for the money required.
In the first case, the "additional" spending generated by the taxation is completely balanced out by the spending it removes in the act of taxation. This is tautologically true.
In the second case, the "additional" spending is generated because the economy has seen an injection of money from the government's borrowing. This is more than completely balanced out because that money has to be paid back, and it has to be paid back with interest.
edit: Christ I hope you guys get some stuff sourced from the literature rather than gop.org or Fox News.
Sourced? I don't need sources when I have a working brain.
On to the next economic fallacy:
If you can't be bothered reading the link (as seems to happen..) the reason why cutting taxes on poor will have a larger effect on the economy is that poorer people spend a larger proportion of their income than richer people due to the nature of what they are buying (needs, rather than wants). Also: - Affects a larger proportion of your economy. (everything other than luxury items) - Poor peoples MPC is much higher, so a higher multiplyer effect - Demand for primary goods increases, as people have more money to spend
Regardless, like previously stated, cuts are generally not as good as government spending for stimulating the economy... as at least you can be sure the money damn well gets spent...
In order:
It doesn't affect a larger proportion of your economy at all. It doesn't matter how many people are affected, what matters is how much money is affected. A tax cut on the rich doesn't affect many people but it has a huge effect on the people it does. A tax cut on the poor affects tons of people but has a relatively tiny effect on each one.
Fallacious ignoring of savings providing funds for investment, which is better for GDP growth than consumption. If you really want to cause an economy to grow, you stimulate investment, not consumption. This is accomplished better through tax cuts on the rich than anything other than direct government investment.
Another "magic money" argument where this "more money" somehow comes out of nowhere. It doesn't. People have no more money to spend unless stimulus is funded by borrowing, in which case they'll just eat the cost later on instead of now.
This is true (especially in the short-term), but cutting taxes in the highest brackets typically generates more in gross tax revenue.
See also - Laffer curve (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve)
No one uses the Laffer Curve seriously. Laffer literally drew it on a hankerchief. You know what the marginal tax rates were in the 50s and 60s during our 20 years of amazing growth and keynesian fiscal policy? 90%.
God being aggressive doesn't help teach people anything, but christ the Laffer curve really?
I don't think anyone here really understand why tax cuts for the rich are effective. Poor people spend money but they do not invest. Rich people invest. Investment increases movement of credit and stimulates the economy.
If people are investing then you'll see the stock market go up, lower prices, and especially important - creation of jobs. Poor people can spend all the money they want but that money is simply not invested and therefore you end up with poor people with a slightly higher standard of living and the same overall economic status. $1000 for every person in the US won't do anything. Cutting business and wealthy taxes by 10% will create thousands of jobs.
It's all about getting people to invest their money so that the economy can grow.
Short answer, privatize. Long answer... depends, what are those "public goods"? You mean goods owned by the government?
If you make a road, you have to have people fund it. Who funds it, who's allowed to use it? Who takes the money? Who collects it? If I haven't paid for it and I want to use it, who do I pay? Can I?
Why can't those goods be owned by someone if they're already owned by the government? And if the government is able to sustain itself monetarily (lol), why can't an entrepreneur?
How does an entrepreneur benefit from having a road? If you need to pay to use it, isn't that shitty? Why wouldn't he gouge you since you need to use it? What happens if people get angry?
And why can't different people have different arbiters in charge of negotiating conflicts?
Who chooses who negociates conflicts? Bias? There would be a lot of abuse. Who makes sure there's not abuse? How are those people not going to abuse it?
This ends up in this russian dolls situation. It would be extremely complicated on so many levels and the way to fix it is usually through some kind of power which could easily end up trying to become a tyrant or at least some kind of leader. Things would turn wrong. Who makes the decision that your anarchy would work in a certain way so it doesn't go wrong? How would you alter human nature.
So many questions you can't understand without "cheating"
On July 06 2010 13:19 Sabu113 wrote:No one uses the Laffer Curve seriously. Laffer literally drew it on a hankerchief. You know what the marginal tax rates were in the 50s and 60s during our 20 years of amazing growth and keynesian fiscal policy? 90%.
God being aggressive doesn't help teach people anything, but christ the Laffer curve really?
You know what happened to tax receipts when Reagan cut taxes from 90% to 38%, or whatever it was?
Nothing. Nothing happened. Tax receipts barely blipped for a year.
Left-wing economists don't take the Laffer Curve seriously because they think where it was drawn means something. It is demonstrably and necessarily true that if tax receipts are 0 at 0% taxation and 0 at 100% taxation (which they are), there is a point where lowering your tax rates will generate more revenue. This is all that is actually claimed by the Laffer Curve.
On July 06 2010 12:23 Djzapz wrote: Rich people pay more taxes than the poor, this allows the poor to buy the rich's products.
And tax-cutting the rich would allow him to cut prices, allowing the poor to buy more junk. So what? A tax is a tax, taking money from the market and using it for some arbitrary end that may or may not turn to be somewhat useful to some of the taxpayers (always with added overhead of course).
On July 06 2010 12:23 Djzapz wrote: Without the US supporting you, you most likely wouldn't be as comfortable. Progressive taxes are key to making an economical country, economical countries sustain their citizen.
On July 06 2010 12:23 Djzapz wrote: Some people can't work. Arguably they steal a tiny percentage of your money, get a disability check. Because of you, a disabled person can live an OK life. In other countries, this isn't as true. Luckily, like all of the other first world countries, you have a progressive tax system. A powerful economical country has never been seen without this system.
That which is has no bearing on how it should be. If we were all monarchies still, it would make aristocracy no more deplorable to the ones who can envision a world without kings, ahead of their time.
On July 06 2010 12:23 Djzapz wrote: Some people abuse the system but this happens in all systems. Unfortunately some people sit on their hands and collect welfare. A great many of those are single mothers who make good use of this service. Personally I'm glad that a tiny percentage of my taxes goes to help single mothers. It's sad that there are people who benefit from it but are just lazy.
Well, when you have a direct incentive for people not to work... I'd say it's a bit predictable that people would be more likely to not work... if you know anything about human action...
On July 06 2010 12:23 Djzapz wrote: I think it's sad that an extremely big portion of all of your paychecks goes to fund multiple wars in an extremely inefficient way...
I think it's sad that the paychecks go anywhere but the employee's pocket period.
On July 06 2010 12:23 Djzapz wrote: The US is the workframe which gave you the opportunity to become rich or at the very least live an above-average comfortable life.
Assuming that by US you mean the US government, what workframe is that? You mean private property and laws wouldn't exist without the government? Well that's debatable, and I doubt you know anything about anarcho-capitalism, but I'm not going to bother trying to explain how it could work, too tired ATM, sorry.
On July 06 2010 12:23 Djzapz wrote: If you were born in Sierra-Leone, you would need to be significantly better of a person to be as successful as your regular american.
Maybe, but is it because of the government here? I think the standards of living in the US are this way despite what the government does, not thanks to it.
On July 06 2010 13:19 Sabu113 wrote:No one uses the Laffer Curve seriously. Laffer literally drew it on a hankerchief. You know what the marginal tax rates were in the 50s and 60s during our 20 years of amazing growth and keynesian fiscal policy? 90%.
God being aggressive doesn't help teach people anything, but christ the Laffer curve really?
You know what happened to tax receipts when Reagan cut taxes from 90% to 38%, or whatever it was?
Nothing. Nothing happened. Tax receipts barely blipped for a year.
Left-wing economists don't take the Laffer Curve seriously because they think where it was drawn means something. It is demonstrably and necessarily true that if tax receipts are 0 at 0% taxation and 0 at 100% taxation (which they are), there is a point where lowering your tax rates will generate more revenue. This is all that is actually claimed by the Laffer Curve.
Nothing happened, really? Someone rewrote history without the part where he had to raise the taxes back for 6 of his 8 years because they were way too low and it messed things up?
On July 06 2010 13:26 Djzapz wrote: Nothing happened, really? Someone rewrote history without the part where he had to raise the taxes back?
Its flat data. Tax receipts as a % of GDP in the last year before Reagan are ~20%. Tax receipts as a % of GDP in the first year after Reagan cut the top rate to whatever it was are 19%, and they wobble around 19% for the rest of Reagan's term. He sure as fuck never had to go above 50%.
On July 06 2010 13:26 Djzapz wrote: Nothing happened, really? Someone rewrote history without the part where he had to raise the taxes back?
Its flat data. Tax receipts as a % of GDP in the last year before Reagan are ~20%. Tax receipts as a % of GDP in the first year after Reagan cut the top rate to whatever it was are 19%, and they wobble around 19% for the rest of Reagan's term. He sure as fuck never had to go above 50%.
Might have something to do with raising taxes 6 years out of 8.
Why does it have to be the gunverment, and why does it have to take money without asking, and not do it voluntarily like any other entrepreneur?
People wouldn't give a sufficient amount of money to build an actual infrastructure. Trying that would certainly be disastrous. If you think otherwise you make huge assumptions about human nature.
If I'm not mistaken, the NJ turnpike was a private highway. But thats a little anecdote. You mean the building of roads is something so impossible to do in private hands that we just need someone to force people to build them? What's so different in a million-dollar highway to a million-dollar building? Do I make huge assumptions to say that the same money (or less) you give to the government could be given to a road-building agency through voluntary means? The agency would have a direct incentive through tolls and other voluntary means of collection, and would be in competition to other agencies... What's so different about roads that makes the usual market competition impossible?
And tax-cutting the rich would allow him to cut prices, allowing the poor to buy more junk. So what? A tax is a tax, taking money from the market and using it for some arbitrary end that may or may not turn to be somewhat useful to some of the taxpayers (always with added overhead of course).
Tax-cutting the rich doesn't affect the production costs and such. Lowering their taxes wouldn't directly affect their prices in a significant way.
Oh so you mean we could tax all their money, or even none of their money, and the prices of stuff wouldn't change, because they'd take that hike/cut like men, and not do anything to preserve nor out-compete other entrepreneurs out of self-interest?
What evidence do you have that a country without a fair amount of taxation can take off at all, it has never even come close to happen. In the US, you can get an OK job fairly easily, get a comfortable apartment or even a house. You get education easily. All of this comes from the taxes people paid before. If people were going "Free for all" like what you're advocating, it would be in the same state as all of the other countries which have tried to do that. Poor and underdeveloped. The countries who have tried flat taxes have done really badly if you care.
You mean the government built the apartments, the businesses, the colleges...? What other countries? I'm against any tax by principle. Even if you say it's necessary, I'll shout out "necessary for what?" What are your ends that are so important to men yet so voluntarily unreachable that justifies coercion?
That which is has no bearing on how it should be. If we were all monarchies still, it would make aristocracy no more deplorable to the ones who can envision a world without kings, ahead of their time.
What are you suggesting?
I'm just pointing out that the state of things is no justification for itself. That's a circular argument. "it is therefore it should be". But if it were any other way, the argument would be the same. So it doesn't justify why it is, or rather, should be.
Provided you were raised in the US, so little of what you have would have been so easy to reach if there wasn't a government taking money from people in order to make it work. If you don't want to pay taxes, go away. The only reason why you want to stay in the US is because it's a good place to live. WHY is it a good place to live? Because it was built to be a good place to live. It was built with taxes. Taxes which used to be a lot higher, btw.
Ok, another odd analogy of mine: If technology today was at the point where we could transfer our minds into other bodies, does that mean that rape would be justifiable in that you could switch to another body for a certain sum of money? I certainly am thankful that we're able to move and stuff (even with all the immigration barriers), but having that option still doesn't justify one's property to be violated where he is at...
Assuming that by US you mean the US government, what workframe is that? You mean private property and laws wouldn't exist without the government? Well that's debatable, and I doubt you know anything about anarcho-capitalism, but I'm not going to bother trying to explain how it could work, too tired ATM, sorry.
People who try to argue for any type of anarchy expect people to be better than they are. If you were to explain anarcho-capitalism, you would make a lot of assumptions about how to build an utopia. If it could work it would be wonderful but it can't.
Well if you read into praxeology, the premises are actually quite agreeable, and I think you'd agree that man would most often act on it's best interest.
It just turns out that peace *is* in man's best interest. Violence is costly, especially in today's technologically enabled world where security and retaliation are so much more efficient in stopping it.
Maybe, but is it because of the government here? I think the standards of living in the US are this way despite what the government does, not thanks to it.
Read the name. It's the United-States. That's a body. You're suggesting the standards of living spawned there out of thin air for the couple hundreds years you've been there? That's ridiculous. I'll state the obvious here. Your country's success is largely based on its governing body which made it quickly rise to be the most powerful country in the world. Your money represents a country. Not a bunch of people, not a landmass, but a body which is governed by a president which has taxed its people for a long, long time. It started well before the US was powerful, too.
That's a nice point of view, but it is far from fact that it's the government that erected buildings, developed commercial technologies, saved and invested efficiently, built capital, made the grass grow... well, the last one I admit, the government may have done it.
You can say the government "enabled" it all but... to point to it as the main benefactor... is very much debatable.
Infrastructure which could have been built voluntarily and more efficiently had people knew+tried.
People don't know. And people obviously want others to pay for it. Everybody knows that. If a person makes $50,000 a year and some project requires 20 billions to be completed, $5000 is nothing, even $50,000 is nothing. It's foolish to expect people would chip in NEARLY enough. But I guess anarchists can distort human nature so it fits.
Then how does a capitalist today does it? Why does an entrepreneur saves or loans millions from a bunch of investors to make something so big that a single middle-class person can't understand? Thing is, it's possible, and it's much more efficient than the government because every cent is accounted for. The investors have everything to lose; government can just tax more or print more... easy come, easy go, yeah?
...or are you saying there hasn't been billion-dollar projects in the private world so far?
Sorry if I sounded obnoxious at any point, it was not intended as an offense.
On July 06 2010 13:35 kzn wrote: He had to raise them because Congress wouldn't get off his nuts and lower spending.
Yeah, certainly not because lowering them too much was an obvious mistake which could have been worse but luckily it got prevented. Got a few PMs that say you're as conservative as it gets... I see that now.
On July 06 2010 13:10 Ciryandor wrote: Ugh, why are we having an economic debate in a political thread, guys? How does this connect with the issue of certain demographics' representation on the Net?
@ Tax cuts vs Spending It's a philosophical issue of what role government should play, whether to direct it with its hand on things; or let those it represents do the deciding for them.
There are real policy implications for choosing to use one or the other.
"Sourced? I don't need sources when I have a working brain."
Personal anecdotal logic does not trump the findings of a entire field of + Show Spoiler +
social (T_T)
science.
Public goods are goods that are non-rivalous and non-excludable. Clean air is a common example of a public good. A justice system is typically thought of as a Public good. Preventing the financial system from crashing is a public good.
Another item of interest to consider when talking about an ararcho-capitalist system is how you deal with the Tragedy of the commons. I.e. Fishing rights.
@ SEC
Now this is pretty interesting. It's going to take me awhile to address all of your points. I was going to say that a Financial market regulation is a public good and in most cases public goods can only be fulfilled by the State; however, up until the Great Depression all of these stock exchanges were completely private. There were some issues as it took quite a bit of effort to get into the NYSE and some possibly more deserving stocks were forced to the curve, but the board regulated itself for about 100 years with reasonable success... Well hmn. There were some shenanigans going on, but foreigners were still really eager to throw their money at speculative ventures. Mnnn.
I'll address what you quoted in a bit will edit this later.
This is quite fun. :D I'm trying to decide whether or not the Fed is an example the success of the private sector in creating necessary systems or rather a malignant growth as a result of the two-tier banking system.
@ Flub. I believe Bush had a phrase for it. "Voo-doo" economics. Keynes' theory cares about the shift in aggregate demand, not how some financial market is doing. You assume the wealthy are less risk-averse than most of us and that they will actually use their money to invest in stocks rather than US-treasuries. That's quite an assumption.
Short answer, privatize. Long answer... depends, what are those "public goods"? You mean goods owned by the government?
If you make a road, you have to have people fund it. Who funds it, who's allowed to use it? Who takes the money? Who collects it? If I haven't paid for it and I want to use it, who do I pay? Can I?
Tolls, ads, local residents and businesses, something I haven't thought of but a clever entrepreneur may, can pay for it. also read this, I haven't read it tbh so idk what it says though lol http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good#Possible_solutions
Why can't those goods be owned by someone if they're already owned by the government? And if the government is able to sustain itself monetarily (lol), why can't an entrepreneur?
How does an entrepreneur benefit from having a road? If you need to pay to use it, isn't that shitty?
People already pay now...
On July 06 2010 13:23 Djzapz wrote: Why wouldn't he gouge you since you need to use it?
Why wouldn't the government gounge you? Oh wait, they already do Short answer, competition. There's hardly any competition when the government has a legal monopoly on it...
On July 06 2010 13:23 Djzapz wrote: What happens if people get angry?
Then they can take it to court. And if you ask me why they wouldn't fight it out well, short answer is that it would hurt everyone more. Both parties would make sure their retaliation and security was up to par to any risks of violence. Something that doesn't happen in today's world of course, unless you're really rich when you can afford paying both the public (useless) and private security.
And why can't different people have different arbiters in charge of negotiating conflicts?
Who chooses who negociates conflicts? Bias? There would be a lot of abuse. Who makes sure there's not abuse? How are those people not going to abuse it?
People themselves make sure there's no abuse by hiring third-party arbiters as-needed. And the arbiters themselves have a direct incentive to solve conflicts just like any private lawyer of today does too. The difference being, without people being forced to pay for the public courts, they'd have more to spare for a decent private court. Courts would also be in competition.. etc... Not getting any longer than that sry.
On July 06 2010 13:23 Djzapz wrote: This ends up in this russian dolls situation. It would be extremely complicated on so many levels and the way to fix it is usually through some kind of power which could easily end up trying to become a tyrant or at least some kind of leader. Things would turn wrong. Who makes the decision that your anarchy would work in a certain way so it doesn't go wrong? How would you alter human nature.
It is extremely complicated, and cutting it short saying "welp, we just have to give guns to these people and let them handle it" is far from being the most efficient way to solve it. You don't have to alter human nature, human beings are social creatures from the get-go. Conflicts have always been better resolved peacefully. No one likes to get hurt. Unless you're a masochist psychopath, in which case you're going to get retaliated to death sometime.
On July 06 2010 13:23 Djzapz wrote: So many questions you can't understand without "cheating"
I'm using cliffnotes on anarchism yo I did in school too, but on statism. Ace'd every subject.
On July 06 2010 13:36 Yurebis wrote: fucking wall of text
I read all of this, and what you're saying, I believe, is that the government lowers the quality of everything it touches.
That's 100% true. Yet the government also increases access to basic goods and services. The reason government-run things suck isn't because they're run by the government (that's a tautology) but because they're available to everyone. Society sometimes decides that it's better to give everyone some crappy stuff than to let the market give a few people good stuff and the rest no stuff.
On July 06 2010 13:19 Sabu113 wrote:No one uses the Laffer Curve seriously. Laffer literally drew it on a hankerchief. You know what the marginal tax rates were in the 50s and 60s during our 20 years of amazing growth and keynesian fiscal policy? 90%.
God being aggressive doesn't help teach people anything, but christ the Laffer curve really?
You know what happened to tax receipts when Reagan cut taxes from 90% to 38%, or whatever it was?
Nothing. Nothing happened. Tax receipts barely blipped for a year.
Left-wing economists don't take the Laffer Curve seriously because they think where it was drawn means something. It is demonstrably and necessarily true that if tax receipts are 0 at 0% taxation and 0 at 100% taxation (which they are), there is a point where lowering your tax rates will generate more revenue. This is all that is actually claimed by the Laffer Curve.
This is not a LEFT WING thing. This is a matter of whether or not this is a legitimate piece of economic research. It is not. T_T To the best of my knowledge, no one has been able to perform econometric work that demonstrates its existence. Also you must address the 90% marginal tax rate during the 60s (hell you can go back another decade if you would like).
You're fun and you raise good points and I apologize for being rude at times, but we have some serious factual disagreements about Theory.
A warning to anyone in this thread arguing against American conservatives:
You are dealing with the dumbest people you could possibly imagine. It's not that they can't understand how to think critically, it's that they have given up the exercise entirely.
These are a bunch of people who will relentlessly cite John Maynard Keynes for his ideas without actually having read him and realizing that he didn't actually agree with their stupid thoughts (see ,e.g., regulation).
These are also a bunch of people who often will argue with you if you suggest that the earth is more than 6000 years old. Fossils, apparently, were put there by Satan.
The American "conservative" experience has been so intellectually debased that it's going to take a long time to repair. And it's kind of sad. Because conservatives in the US, were more of them sane and/or not total intellectual morons, would have something interesting to say. The sane American conservatives are forced out. Unfortunately.
On July 06 2010 13:55 cucumber wrote: These are a bunch of people who will relentlessly cite John Maynard Keynes for his ideas without actually having read him and realizing that he didn't actually agree with their stupid thoughts (see ,e.g., regulation).
These are also a bunch of people who often will argue with you if you suggest that the earth is more than 6000 years old. Fossils, apparently, were put there by Satan.
The American "conservative" experience has been so intellectually debased that it's going to take a long time to repair. And it's kind of sad. Because conservatives in the US, were more of them sane and/or not total intellectual morons, would have something interesting to say. The sane American conservatives are forced out. Unfortunately.
Conservatives hate Keynes and internet conservatives are very unlikely to believe in creationism.
On July 06 2010 13:36 jalstar wrote: You can use basic math to prove that the laffer curve exists in theory, but there's no evidence of it showing up in a real-world application.
1. Revenue as a % of GDP is too low for a peak to show up. 2. Too many other variables are involved.
Uh, just a heads up, but you typically do not pick a single outlier as the only accurately followed point on your curve and leave the majority of the data completely unrepresented by the model.
You mean the building of roads is something so impossible to do in private hands that we just need someone to force people to build them?
The network certainly wouldn't be nearly as impressive but I'm sure some roads would get done.
What's so different in a million-dollar highway to a million-dollar building?
The building affects a company's income significantly more directly than the road that leads to that building.
Do I make huge assumptions to say that the same money (or less) you give to the government could be given to a road-building agency through voluntary means? The agency would have a direct incentive through tolls and other voluntary means of collection, and would be in competition to other agencies... What's so different about roads that makes the usual market competition impossible?
Simple. If I have a small amount and I can either fund a small project (buying food) vs a big project which won't directly pay me back, I'll chose the smaller project, as would most people. This would slow things down considerably. I have no clue how you would argue otherwise.
Oh so you mean we could tax all their money, or even none of their money, and the prices of stuff wouldn't change, because they'd take that hike/cut like men, and not do anything to preserve nor out-compete other entrepreneurs out of self-interest?
If you lower the rich's taxes, they won't feel that they don't deserve the extra earnings. They won't equalize it by lowering their prices. If object A makes the most profit @ 1.99, they won't make it 1.90 just to be nice.
You mean the government built the apartments, the businesses, the colleges...?
Lots of them yes... Definitely.
I'm against any tax by principle. Even if you say it's necessary, I'll shout out "necessary for what?"
Name one good country with no taxes. GG
What are your ends that are so important to men yet so voluntarily unreachable that justifies coercion?
No coercion involved ever. If you don't like it you can go away, that's always an option. They will NEVER keep you from leaving ever.
If technology today was at the point where we could transfer our minds into other bodies, does that mean that rape would be justifiable in that you could switch to another body for a certain sum of money?
That analogy is a non-sequitur. A huge one.
Well if you read into praxeology, the premises are actually quite agreeable, and I think you'd agree that man would most often act on it's best interest.
People agree with untrue things all the time.
It just turns out that peace *is* in man's best interest. Violence is costly, especially in today's technologically enabled world where security and retaliation are so much more efficient in stopping it.
That would mean something if people behaved in their best interest. I would like to suggest that you aren't. If there was a big red button for your kind of anarchy and pushing it made it happen, I'm sure you'd push it and nothing would happen as you would expect.
Then how does a capitalist today does it? Why does an entrepreneur saves or loans millions from a bunch of investors to make something so big that a single middle-class person can't understand?
Personal profit.
...or are you saying there hasn't been billion-dollar projects in the private world so far
Nothing that won't directly benefit the entrepreneur. Or very little. Can't expect that to happen on a large scale.
On July 06 2010 13:36 jalstar wrote: You can use basic math to prove that the laffer curve exists in theory, but there's no evidence of it showing up in a real-world application.
1. Revenue as a % of GDP is too low for a peak to show up. 2. Too many other variables are involved.
Uh, just a heads up, but you typically do not pick a single outlier as the only accurately followed point on your curve and leave the majority of the data completely unrepresented by the model.
Just a heads up, but that's the point. The graph disproves that Laffer's theory is currently in effect.
Uhhh, I was thinking, how then would you fund for those roads that lead to hundred person towns all over America? Can those twenty family towns really afford to pay the burden for the one or two roads they'll need to use to get in and out? Also, what about Interstates? Maybe it would stimulate rail travel as a more economical means to haul products and build a much more widespread rail network, but can say... trucking companies and salesmen really afford a three-thousand mile stretch of road and all the byways it requires? The Federal Highway system was one of the biggest engineering projects of its day and also the one most in need of maintenance.
Maybe the fact that it's already there means that a private entity could possibly do the maintenance better than any government can, especially if the state-level road networks were indeed done in such a manner, but I'm afraid that the federal-level roads aren't as conducive to such private pricing efforts.
What's so different in a million-dollar highway to a million-dollar building?
The building affects a company's income significantly more directly than the road that leads to that building.
What use is a building if there's no road to it... I mean, I think that's kind of obvious to anyone building any type of structure that you need the means to get to it... roads are no different than doors in that sense.
Do I make huge assumptions to say that the same money (or less) you give to the government could be given to a road-building agency through voluntary means? The agency would have a direct incentive through tolls and other voluntary means of collection, and would be in competition to other agencies... What's so different about roads that makes the usual market competition impossible?
Simple. If I have a small amount and I can either fund a small project (buying food) vs a big project which won't directly pay me back, I'll chose the smaller project, as would most people. This would slow things down considerably. I have no clue how you would argue otherwise.
Why's that bad? You're choosing that project which can have a positive return, instead of being the careless government and blow a million dollars here and there making lousy distribution of resources, hell, it's not their money anyway.
A thousand entrepreneurs acting on self-interest can much better build anything than a monopolistic agency. I have no clue how you would argue otherwise.
Oh so you mean we could tax all their money, or even none of their money, and the prices of stuff wouldn't change, because they'd take that hike/cut like men, and not do anything to preserve nor out-compete other entrepreneurs out of self-interest?
If you lower the rich's taxes, they won't feel that they don't deserve the extra earnings. They won't equalize it by lowering their prices. If object A makes the most profit @ 1.99, they won't make it 1.90 just to be nice.
Did I say they'd lower prices out of kindness? I said other entrepreneurs would lower the prices and still have the same profit margin, while the competitor who did not will sell less. Low prices happen because there's free market entry a.k.a. competition. If there's a profit margin to be made, someone's gonna enter and out-compete you.
You mean the government built the apartments, the businesses, the colleges...?
Lots of them yes... Definitely.
How many you think? I have no idea to be honest But I'd guess <1% And even then, it wasn't really Senator McCain going there and building the stuff, the government itself just reallocates the money to get it build. So still, it was technically the taxpayers who paid for it to be built just like everything else, aka the people who got their money stolen from.
I'm against any tax by principle. Even if you say it's necessary, I'll shout out "necessary for what?"
Name one good country with no taxes. GG
Would you ask me the same thing were we in a monarchic world? I already said that's no argument. There are no anarcho-capitalist countries in the world, and arguably there never was. Some say Somalia, I say they go study Somalia before saying that.
If technology today was at the point where we could transfer our minds into other bodies, does that mean that rape would be justifiable in that you could switch to another body for a certain sum of money?
That analogy is a non-sequitur. A huge one.
It's not that bad, self-ownership is not that far from private property. And in a futuristic world where you could exchange bodies for just as much as exchanging countries (tens of thousands of dollars at least), it fits perfectly. The case in point is not what can I do after the stealing has been made, but the stealing itself...
Well if you read into praxeology, the premises are actually quite agreeable, and I think you'd agree that man would most often act on it's best interest.
People agree with untrue things all the time.
That's nice. Can you point what's untrue about praxeology? Preferably without engaging in performative contradiction? (it's possible, but just saying, it's kind of awkward)
It just turns out that peace *is* in man's best interest. Violence is costly, especially in today's technologically enabled world where security and retaliation are so much more efficient in stopping it.
That would mean something if people behaved in their best interest. I would like to suggest that you aren't. If there was a big red button for your kind of anarchy and pushing it made it happen, I'm sure you'd push it and nothing would happen as you would expect.
I haven't claimed certainty. All i have are certain tenants and theories that you are free to disagree with. I just ask that you be consistent as I try to be too.
Then how does a capitalist today does it? Why does an entrepreneur saves or loans millions from a bunch of investors to make something so big that a single middle-class person can't understand?
On July 06 2010 13:36 jalstar wrote: You can use basic math to prove that the laffer curve exists in theory, but there's no evidence of it showing up in a real-world application.
1. Revenue as a % of GDP is too low for a peak to show up. 2. Too many other variables are involved.
Uh, just a heads up, but you typically do not pick a single outlier as the only accurately followed point on your curve and leave the majority of the data completely unrepresented by the model.
Just a heads up, but that's the point. The graph disproves that Laffer's theory is currently in effect.
Just a heads up, but its terrible if that's the point. The graph doesn't disprove that Laffer's theory is in effect at all. Its just really bad circumstantial evidence, as:
1) its coordinate system isn't a good choice. 2) the curve could easily be threaded through the majority of the data, and the UAE point validates one of the starting assumptions.
No offense but I'm obviously talking to somebody who just makes a lot of assumptions and is obviously believes things without merits. Anarchy never worked, and when it happened it was quickly taken over by someone or some people.
I won't bother with point by point rebuttal again, I can bring up absolute facts but you'll always insist that human nature is magically different from what it really is and I can't argue with people who believe in unicorns.
On July 06 2010 13:36 Yurebis wrote: fucking wall of text
I read all of this, and what you're saying, I believe, is that the government lowers the quality of everything it touches.
That's 100% true. Yet the government also increases access to basic goods and services. The reason government-run things suck isn't because they're run by the government (that's a tautology) but because they're available to everyone. Society sometimes decides that it's better to give everyone some crappy stuff than to let the market give a few people good stuff and the rest no stuff.
Lighthouses, private roads (yes they exist), any private-public building that you can walk in freely... I don't think they're necessarily crappy. Private charity too, if that counts, isn't necessarily crappy either. Private things are only crappy as much as the owner allows it or wants it to be. With public-public, or rather state goods, it's likely to be more crappy because there's less incentive mechanisms for the government to take care of it... no profit motive for starters of course.
On July 06 2010 14:22 Djzapz wrote: No offense but I'm obviously talking to somebody who just makes a lot of assumptions and is obviously believes things without merits. Anarchy never worked, and when it happened it was quickly taken over by someone or some people.
I won't bother with point by point rebuttal again, I can bring up absolute facts but you'll always insist that human nature is magically different from what it really is and I can't argue with people who believe in unicorns.
Low prices happen because there's free market entry a.k.a. competition. If there's a profit margin to be made, someone's gonna enter and out-compete you.
And then the bigger company will buy out the out-competing company, not that a small business can maintain lower prices than a big business over a large period of time (economies of scale)
Lighthouses, private roads (yes they exist), any private-public building that you can walk in freely... I don't think they're necessarily crappy. Private charity too, if that counts, isn't necessarily crappy either. Private things are only crappy as much as the owner allows it or wants it to be. With public-public, or rather state goods, it's likely to be more crappy because there's less incentive mechanisms for the government to take care of it... no profit motive for starters of course..
A lot of the solutions in the wikipedia link are paid for by taxes. If taxes are immoral how do you justify the existence of subsidized and other private-public cooperations.
Lighthouses, private roads (yes they exist), any private-public building that you can walk in freely... I don't think they're necessarily crappy. Private charity too, if that counts, isn't necessarily crappy either. Private things are only crappy as much as the owner allows it or wants it to be. With public-public, or rather state goods, it's likely to be more crappy because there's less incentive mechanisms for the government to take care of it... no profit motive for starters of course..
A lot of the solutions in the wikipedia link are paid for by taxes. If taxes are immoral how do you justify the existence of subsidized and other private-public cooperations.
I don't, and sorry for passing a link which I didn't read (as I said I didn't) I just figure that there ought to be voluntary solutions first, before jumping the gun saying "it's necessary" I'm going to sleep, sorry for anything.
Private Roads are not feasible. Is there a toll booth at EVERY FUCKING ROAD? How can there be competition if if only one road can be in place at a time? There is but a single road in my neighborhood. How the fuck do you expect there to be 7+ companies installing their own road in that neighborhood?
This is the same reason why there is only one state owned/funded/controlled (not sure of the exact nature of the relationship) power and water utility in your area. Can you imagine having multiple power grids? Can you imagine 4 different entire infrastructures in a city? That would be chaos!
On July 06 2010 13:55 cucumber wrote: A warning to anyone in this thread arguing against American conservatives:
You are dealing with the dumbest people you could possibly imagine. It's not that they can't understand how to think critically, it's that they have given up the exercise entirely.
These are a bunch of people who will relentlessly cite John Maynard Keynes for his ideas without actually having read him and realizing that he didn't actually agree with their stupid thoughts (see ,e.g., regulation).
These are also a bunch of people who often will argue with you if you suggest that the earth is more than 6000 years old. Fossils, apparently, were put there by Satan.
The American "conservative" experience has been so intellectually debased that it's going to take a long time to repair. And it's kind of sad. Because conservatives in the US, were more of them sane and/or not total intellectual morons, would have something interesting to say. The sane American conservatives are forced out. Unfortunately.
And we were doing relatively well on the "no retards in the thread yet" part.
On July 05 2010 19:42 Neobick wrote: Edit: My definition of bias is only seeing things from one side, or giving one side an unfair advantage-
Then you are making your own definition based on connotations of the word bias, which is really not what it means.
I learned about the Bayes rule (my teacher pronounced it similar to bias) in a mathematics course, which is about predicting future events using past data. I thought this might have been the origin of the word, but apparently not.
On July 06 2010 15:23 rockon1215 wrote: Private Roads are not feasible. Is there a toll booth at EVERY FUCKING ROAD?
If you and I can realize how stupid that would be, the people with millions on the line certainly would too. The separate road owners could sell/buy/merge their roads or share the same toll booth, or get paid by other means...
On July 06 2010 15:23 rockon1215 wrote: How can there be competition if if only one road can be in place at a time?
How can there be competition of shoe-makers if there can only be one pair of shoes in a box at a time? Sorry but that's a non-issue. If you mean real estate is too expensive in some areas to build new roads, then I'd agree, but it's very much circumstantial and it's up to the investors if they want to compete or not. It's the free market entry that keeps prices down, not necessarily *having* a competing product or service all the time.
On July 06 2010 15:23 rockon1215 wrote: There is but a single road in my neighborhood. How the fuck do you expect there to be 7+ companies installing their own road in that neighborhood?
I don't expect there to be any number of companies. There will be as many as investors want to try it out. If you're saying there's no profit opportunity to have competing roads there, sure I'll believe you.
What happens is, the company that owns the single road in your town is able to charge a bit more than usual. This is no different than what the state does today. It is in fact more prevalent today since the state is the sole regulator, price fixer, and virtually owner of all roads. We *have* a monopoly today. Why aren't you up in arms about that?
On July 06 2010 15:23 rockon1215 wrote: This is the same reason why there is only one state owned/funded/controlled (not sure of the exact nature of the relationship) power and water utility in your area.
To protect the consumer? If the government is more efficient at doing x, then why can't it just do x and outperform everyone else without restricting competition out? It doesn't matter if it's roads, water, electricity, law. A service is a service, it is something done by the hands of men. And even if there was only one way to do x (and there isn't most of the time, but assuming), and x is a very desirable service, doesn't justify anyone to legally monopolize x. You can do better? Then buy off the infrastructure and manage it at greater profits. No need to restrict the competition that you say is less efficient. Prove it without mandate!
On July 06 2010 15:23 rockon1215 wrote: Can you imagine having multiple power grids?
Yes. Whether that's desirable or undesirable is not of my concern; I didn't pay to put up the lines, did you? Whoever put them up is going to have a loss or profit, it's their investment.
On July 06 2010 15:23 rockon1215 wrote: Can you imagine 4 different entire infrastructures in a city?
Yes. Again, the city ain't mine.
On July 06 2010 15:23 rockon1215 wrote: That would be chaos!
I doubt any entrepreneur would invest into an overcrowded market. There's something thats called the law of diminishing returns. It is usually noted in consumption but it's true on the supply side as well. The 4th, 5th, Nth company to enter has to provide something special and more valuable than the more established ones in order to sell anything. If you got nothing new, nor more efficient, then why would people bother to hire you? The infrastructures are just a plain loss. And if you and I can realize that, surely the people with millions on the line...
I'm not going to argue that public works couldn't/wouldn't ever be done by private individuals, but if you really believe we'd have even half the infrastructure we do now without the government building it than you are seriously out of your mind.
On July 06 2010 13:55 cucumber wrote: A warning to anyone in this thread arguing against American conservatives:
You are dealing with the dumbest people you could possibly imagine. It's not that they can't understand how to think critically, it's that they have given up the exercise entirely.
These are a bunch of people who will relentlessly cite John Maynard Keynes for his ideas without actually having read him and realizing that he didn't actually agree with their stupid thoughts (see ,e.g., regulation).
These are also a bunch of people who often will argue with you if you suggest that the earth is more than 6000 years old. Fossils, apparently, were put there by Satan.
The American "conservative" experience has been so intellectually debased that it's going to take a long time to repair. And it's kind of sad. Because conservatives in the US, were more of them sane and/or not total intellectual morons, would have something interesting to say. The sane American conservatives are forced out. Unfortunately.
And we were doing relatively well on the "no retards in the thread yet" part.
Sigh.
I think by conservatives he meant Tea Party conservatives... he described the member of the Tea Party movement pretty well.
On July 07 2010 01:56 Myles wrote: I'm not going to argue that public works couldn't/wouldn't ever be done by private individuals, but if you really believe we'd have even half the infrastructure we do now without the government building it than you are seriously out of your mind.
There would be as much infrastructure as profit could be made out of it
On July 07 2010 01:56 Myles wrote: I'm not going to argue that public works couldn't/wouldn't ever be done by private individuals, but if you really believe we'd have even half the infrastructure we do now without the government building it than you are seriously out of your mind.
There would be as much infrastructure as profit could be made out of it
And our country would suffer for it. Most people wouldn't have power or running water. There would be hardly any public sanitation. Look at any civilization that didn't have public works from the government, they didn't have any significant infrastructure.
On July 07 2010 01:56 Myles wrote: I'm not going to argue that public works couldn't/wouldn't ever be done by private individuals, but if you really believe we'd have even half the infrastructure we do now without the government building it than you are seriously out of your mind.
There would be as much infrastructure as profit could be made out of it
On a paralel note, does government really needs to be something profitable ? something tells me that modern economics is a hoax, and we could fabricate money to build space stations out of nowhere
On July 07 2010 01:56 Myles wrote: I'm not going to argue that public works couldn't/wouldn't ever be done by private individuals, but if you really believe we'd have even half the infrastructure we do now without the government building it than you are seriously out of your mind.
There would be as much infrastructure as profit could be made out of it
On a paralel note, does government really needs to be something profitable ? something tells me that modern economics is a hoax, and we could fabricate money to build space stations out of nowhere
Money is still part of the demand/supply cycle. Printing a ton of money just reduces the value of the individual bill.
On July 07 2010 01:56 Myles wrote: I'm not going to argue that public works couldn't/wouldn't ever be done by private individuals, but if you really believe we'd have even half the infrastructure we do now without the government building it than you are seriously out of your mind.
There would be as much infrastructure as profit could be made out of it
And our country would suffer for it. Most people wouldn't have power or running water. There would be hardly any public sanitation.
Why? If there's demand for x, then there's a profit opportunity for x, meaning, x will sometime be offered and bought for. The government is composed of men, they're hardly more innovative and hardly more efficient than profit-seeking man in delivering solutions.
On July 07 2010 02:45 Myles wrote: Look at any civilization that didn't have public works from the government, they didn't have any significant infrastructure.
It would seem to me that this thread has evolved into (yet another) economics thread, which is somehow sad. Economics, just like most social sciences, is severely lacking in its predicting capabilities, and most large-scale tastings would likely be very unpleasant for those involved. Frankly, the usefulness of most models is simply too hard to evaluate.
Therefore, one should be careful when claiming a society need to be a certain way for economic reasons. In most cases, the data supporting such a claim is insufficient, at least from a natural scientific point of view.
With regards to the original topic, the bias very much depends on what site you are visiting, and your country of origin. A site with a large European contingent would likely seem liberal to an American visitor. As to what an European visitor think of sites like http://www.conservapedia.com, I bet most are torn between tears and laughter.
On July 07 2010 03:16 Fwmeh wrote: It would seem to me that this thread has evolved into (yet another) economics thread, which is somehow sad. Economics, just like most social sciences, is severely lacking in its predicting capabilities, and most large-scale tastings would likely be very unpleasant for those involved. Frankly, the usefulness of most models is simply too hard to evaluate.
Therefore, one should be careful when claiming a society need to be a certain way for economic reasons. In most cases, the data supporting such a claim is insufficient, at least from a natural scientific point of view.
Austrian Economics agrees with you The future can't be evaluated because the ends and means of every individual changes constantly
On July 07 2010 03:16 Fwmeh wrote: With regards to the original topic
On July 07 2010 03:16 Fwmeh wrote: It would seem to me that this thread has evolved into (yet another) economics thread, which is somehow sad. Economics, just like most social sciences, is severely lacking in its predicting capabilities, and most large-scale tastings would likely be very unpleasant for those involved. Frankly, the usefulness of most models is simply too hard to evaluate.
Therefore, one should be careful when claiming a society need to be a certain way for economic reasons. In most cases, the data supporting such a claim is insufficient, at least from a natural scientific point of view.
Austrian Economics agrees with you. The future can't be evaluated because the ends and means of every individual changes constantly
With that in mind, I think that man (or its representative, the government) should aim to control "the market" as far as is feasible, while still allowing it to function. What it Europe might be called a mixed economy. I do personally not hold any sympathy for the idea that "the market" is what is determine mans deserts.
On July 07 2010 03:16 Fwmeh wrote: It would seem to me that this thread has evolved into (yet another) economics thread, which is somehow sad. Economics, just like most social sciences, is severely lacking in its predicting capabilities, and most large-scale tastings would likely be very unpleasant for those involved. Frankly, the usefulness of most models is simply too hard to evaluate.
Therefore, one should be careful when claiming a society need to be a certain way for economic reasons. In most cases, the data supporting such a claim is insufficient, at least from a natural scientific point of view.
Austrian Economics agrees with you. The future can't be evaluated because the ends and means of every individual changes constantly
With that in mind, I think that man (or its representative, the government) should aim to control "the market" as far as is feasible, while still allowing it to function. What it Europe might be called a mixed economy. I do personally not hold any sympathy for the idea that "the market" is what is determine mans deserts.
What's that system for? The goal? And if you define "the market" as the group of individuals freely acting and trading voluntarily, I think what you say is a bit contradictory. Voluntarily acting men do not determine man's deserts?
On July 07 2010 03:16 Fwmeh wrote: It would seem to me that this thread has evolved into (yet another) economics thread, which is somehow sad. Economics, just like most social sciences, is severely lacking in its predicting capabilities, and most large-scale tastings would likely be very unpleasant for those involved. Frankly, the usefulness of most models is simply too hard to evaluate.
Therefore, one should be careful when claiming a society need to be a certain way for economic reasons. In most cases, the data supporting such a claim is insufficient, at least from a natural scientific point of view.
Austrian Economics agrees with you. The future can't be evaluated because the ends and means of every individual changes constantly
With that in mind, I think that man (or its representative, the government) should aim to control "the market" as far as is feasible, while still allowing it to function. What it Europe might be called a mixed economy. I do personally not hold any sympathy for the idea that "the market" is what is determine mans deserts.
A centralized, controlled economy simply DOES NOT WORK. The soviet union taught us that. The more control the government tries to implement, the worse the economy does.
Maybe you're not arguing about communism, but saying that the market should be contolled by the government as far as it is feasible is not good in any way. Governments are naturally inefficient, and even if they were more efficient it's still impossible for a single government to determine supply and demand for every good and service.
That being said government does have a role in keeping inflation/deflation in check (through the fed) and I do think some regulation is neccessary.
Back to the original topic, someone said that the internet is more liberal because it's more youthful and the young are generally more liberal, and that in the future the republican party will become more moderate. I think that's true to an extent but I also believe that the more conservative of teens/20 something year-olds don't spend as much time on the internet. And also people generally become more conservative as they get older.
On July 07 2010 03:16 Fwmeh wrote: It would seem to me that this thread has evolved into (yet another) economics thread, which is somehow sad. Economics, just like most social sciences, is severely lacking in its predicting capabilities, and most large-scale tastings would likely be very unpleasant for those involved. Frankly, the usefulness of most models is simply too hard to evaluate.
Therefore, one should be careful when claiming a society need to be a certain way for economic reasons. In most cases, the data supporting such a claim is insufficient, at least from a natural scientific point of view.
Austrian Economics agrees with you. The future can't be evaluated because the ends and means of every individual changes constantly
With that in mind, I think that man (or its representative, the government) should aim to control "the market" as far as is feasible, while still allowing it to function. What it Europe might be called a mixed economy. I do personally not hold any sympathy for the idea that "the market" is what is determine mans deserts.
A centralized, controlled economy simply DOES NOT WORK. The soviet union taught us that. The more control the government tries to implement, the worse the economy does.
If you're able to see examples where purely controlled economies don't work you should be able to find out that if a market is "too free", it doesn't get as powerful and is much more instable in many situations.
The internet does NOT have a political bias on the whole. Any such notion is paranoia or evidence of how far off base their political views are from the baseline (center).
On July 05 2010 19:36 DrainX wrote: It is well known that reality has a liberal bias.
This person says it perfectly. Conservatives (at least American ones from my experience) tend to be further from the center than they realize, often criticizing everyone in the middle and the left of being "liberals". This causes lots of accusations of institutions or industries of having a "liberal bias". Sometimes they even accuse fellow conservatives of "turning" or being "too liberal" due to the accuser being further to the right than the other conservative.
In short, the world and the internet isn't "liberal biased", anyone who thinks so is probably just a bit too far to the right and needs to employ a little introspection and observe where the real political lines are drawn.
On July 07 2010 03:16 Fwmeh wrote: It would seem to me that this thread has evolved into (yet another) economics thread, which is somehow sad. Economics, just like most social sciences, is severely lacking in its predicting capabilities, and most large-scale tastings would likely be very unpleasant for those involved. Frankly, the usefulness of most models is simply too hard to evaluate.
Therefore, one should be careful when claiming a society need to be a certain way for economic reasons. In most cases, the data supporting such a claim is insufficient, at least from a natural scientific point of view.
Austrian Economics agrees with you. The future can't be evaluated because the ends and means of every individual changes constantly
With that in mind, I think that man (or its representative, the government) should aim to control "the market" as far as is feasible, while still allowing it to function. What it Europe might be called a mixed economy. I do personally not hold any sympathy for the idea that "the market" is what is determine mans deserts.
A centralized, controlled economy simply DOES NOT WORK. The soviet union taught us that. The more control the government tries to implement, the worse the economy does.
[...] if a market is "too free", it doesn't get as powerful and is much more instable in many situations.
Comparing Conservatism to Liberalism is a paradoxical pursuit. The definition of Conservatism is very different depending on the country you live in. Conservatives from different countries often hate each other, while Liberalism has a more universal meaning and unity.
American Conservatism is much different than European or Asian Conservatism. From my experiences, American Conservatism adheres to strict following of the American Constitution, The Founding Documents, and the ideals that they stand for. Whereas Asian/European style conservatism is more about National pride and/or Racial/Cultural heritage.
Unfortunately, The American left does not like these ideals and have done a great job of brainwashing American kids into being idiots who never read their own constitution.
The internet has a liberal bias because most people are too lazy to study history or economics. Liberalism is simple, easy, and "nice". American Conservatism is complex, deep, and demanding. Ask yourself which one you would rather follow... unfortunately most people are too lazy to study things that don't give them an immediate benefit...
On July 07 2010 03:16 Fwmeh wrote: It would seem to me that this thread has evolved into (yet another) economics thread, which is somehow sad. Economics, just like most social sciences, is severely lacking in its predicting capabilities, and most large-scale tastings would likely be very unpleasant for those involved. Frankly, the usefulness of most models is simply too hard to evaluate.
Therefore, one should be careful when claiming a society need to be a certain way for economic reasons. In most cases, the data supporting such a claim is insufficient, at least from a natural scientific point of view.
Austrian Economics agrees with you. The future can't be evaluated because the ends and means of every individual changes constantly
With that in mind, I think that man (or its representative, the government) should aim to control "the market" as far as is feasible, while still allowing it to function. What it Europe might be called a mixed economy. I do personally not hold any sympathy for the idea that "the market" is what is determine mans deserts.
A centralized, controlled economy simply DOES NOT WORK. The soviet union taught us that. The more control the government tries to implement, the worse the economy does.
[...] if a market is "too free", it doesn't get as powerful and is much more instable in many situations.
like?
Cite an example of a free market that worked properly.
Free Market is an utopia, just like anarchy which you like so much. It makes the claim that everyone will do everything correctly. Unfortunately, shit happens if you just let people do their things.
But then again you don't have the slightest clue about how people would behave in a free market and you make some more assumptions... It's pretty weird that you don't even show any doubt whatsoever, given that you make SO MANY assumptions.
On July 07 2010 06:04 deadbutmoving wrote: The internet has a liberal bias because most people are too lazy to study history or economics. Liberalism is simple, easy, and "nice". American Conservatism is complex, deep, and demanding. Ask yourself which one you would rather follow... unfortunately most people are too lazy to study things that don't give them an immediate benefit...
How much history have you studied? What is your historical education based on? Do you have any credentials?
On July 07 2010 03:16 Fwmeh wrote: It would seem to me that this thread has evolved into (yet another) economics thread, which is somehow sad. Economics, just like most social sciences, is severely lacking in its predicting capabilities, and most large-scale tastings would likely be very unpleasant for those involved. Frankly, the usefulness of most models is simply too hard to evaluate.
Therefore, one should be careful when claiming a society need to be a certain way for economic reasons. In most cases, the data supporting such a claim is insufficient, at least from a natural scientific point of view.
Austrian Economics agrees with you. The future can't be evaluated because the ends and means of every individual changes constantly
With that in mind, I think that man (or its representative, the government) should aim to control "the market" as far as is feasible, while still allowing it to function. What it Europe might be called a mixed economy. I do personally not hold any sympathy for the idea that "the market" is what is determine mans deserts.
A centralized, controlled economy simply DOES NOT WORK. The soviet union taught us that. The more control the government tries to implement, the worse the economy does.
[...] if a market is "too free", it doesn't get as powerful and is much more instable in many situations.
like?
Cite an example of a free market that worked properly.
Free Market is an utopia, just like anarchy which you like so much. It makes the claim that everyone will do everything correctly. Unfortunately, shit happens if you just let people do their things.
But then again you don't have the slightest clue about how people would behave in a free market and you make some more assumptions... It's pretty weird that you don't even show any doubt whatsoever, given that you make SO MANY assumptions.
On July 07 2010 05:22 Djzapz wrote: If you're able to see examples where purely controlled economies don't work you should be able to find out that if a market is "too free", it doesn't get as powerful and is much more instable in many situations.
Economies are unstable because humans are imperfect. The financial "crisis" of the past years are simply corrections in the market that need to happen to reflect true economic activity. When humans overvalue any market, that market will eventually need to be devalued to reflect its true worth.
Complaining about imperfections of the market is the same as complaining about human imperfections; because the market is simply defined as free individuals engaging in economic activity.
Likewise having the government control the market is also defined as having the government control individuals ability to engage in economic activity..... AKA Government Tyranny.
Finally, Today's Liberals say they are pro freedom of individuals' right to choose, yet they often support harsh government control over people's rights to engage in free commerce. To me this is simply tyranny.
People are imperfect, having a bunch of imperfect people acting freely will never create a perfectly stable economy. But it's much more desirable than having an imperfect Government Commanding everyone like it's perfect just because everyone voted for it.
On July 07 2010 06:04 deadbutmoving wrote: The internet has a liberal bias because most people are too lazy to study history or economics. Liberalism is simple, easy, and "nice". American Conservatism is complex, deep, and demanding. Ask yourself which one you would rather follow... unfortunately most people are too lazy to study things that don't give them an immediate benefit...
How much history have you studied? What is your historical education based on? Do you have any credentials?
Common sense is my credentials.
Let me guess, You want me to get a Liberal education from a Liberal University, by Liberal professors, composed, paid for, and created by Liberals.
To you, the only credentials you would ever trust are ....... Liberal credentials.
One note on the word "to work". Something that "works", works for a function, an end. You can't say that such and such economy or market works, without establishing first what the ends are. The world's a big place, and no market has a single end, as no market is composed of a single person.
On July 07 2010 06:04 deadbutmoving wrote: The internet has a liberal bias because most people are too lazy to study history or economics. Liberalism is simple, easy, and "nice". American Conservatism is complex, deep, and demanding. Ask yourself which one you would rather follow... unfortunately most people are too lazy to study things that don't give them an immediate benefit...
How much history have you studied? What is your historical education based on? Do you have any credentials?
Common sense is my credentials.
Let me guess, You want me to get a Liberal education from a Liberal University, by Liberal professors, composed, paid for, and created by Liberals.
To you, the only credentials you would ever trust are ....... Liberal credentials.
So none at all? You're an idiot and there's not much to say. Also, you lack the basic understanding to understand the difference between modern liberal political beliefs and the meaning of 'liberal education'. If you're completely ignorant, choose to look at things to confirm your beliefs you should just keep your mouth shut
On July 06 2010 10:52 Sleight wrote: Right or left on the spectrum are basically irrelevant. All political discussions boil down to 3 characters.
1) He who knows better. (The loud-mouthed liberal/conservative who are sure Obama is the best/worst)
2) He who doesn't feel like it is anyone's business (The true libertarians/radical lefties who recognize that as soon as the government says who we can and can't marry, they can just as easily say what we can or can't do otherwise)
3) People who are busy having lives and recognize they aren't well-informed (these are theoretical people, none have ever been maintained in captivity)
Cheers!
I quote myself to reiterate how true 1) sounds as this thread continues. Also, I was asked which one I fall into. I like to believe that I am a libertarian, aka 2), but have been accused of liberalism to no end. I am firmly against the US government involvement in restricting civil liberties, which apparently makes me a flaming liberal in this day and age.
My belief is that most of everyone is probably stupid to decide well for themselves, so deciding for someone else is even a worse of an idea.
Also, for the conservatives accusing liberals of this and liberals accusing conservatives of that... You are all idiots. We all are. Accept this. Move on with your lives. And I am sure everyone is wrong on plenty of things, just by virtue of us all being mostly selfish and pretty focused on what would fit in nicely with ourselves.
On July 07 2010 06:09 Djzapz wrote: Cite an example of a free market that worked properly.
Free Market is an utopia, just like anarchy which you like so much. It makes the claim that everyone will do everything correctly. Unfortunately, shit happens if you just let people do their things.
But then again you don't have the slightest clue about how people would behave in a free market and you make some more assumptions... It's pretty weird that you don't even show any doubt whatsoever, given that you make SO MANY assumptions.
Having imperfect people run their own lives is better than having imperfect people running other people's lives.
Neither system can perfect because ALL HUMANS ARE IMPERFECT, however one is free the other is tyrannical.
You seem to believe that Government can somehow run everything perfectly just because they were voted into power. This is what I call the Illusion of Democracy. And this is Precisely why the founding fathers of America hated Democracies. The founders loved Liberty NOT Democracy.
Common sense through the ages There are evil spirits in his skull crack open his head and to release them This lead based makeup can't do anything bad man all these people are dying from the plague must be these dirty dogs and cats doing it to everyone well something's going wrong so it's gotta be a witch, better drown some people until we figure it out
1. Liberals don't work and can spend more time on the internet. This is a joke, but in reality, most college students are liberal and college students usually don't work and that means they spend more time on the internet. Don't worry TL, you will all be conservative when you hit 50
2. The media is liberally biased. I think this is known pretty well. If you disagree, watch the different channels, count the # of praises for obama on each channel. If the # of praises is higher than the # of criticisms, then it is liberal, otherwise conservative. I think you will find one conservative network.
3. Conservatives don't have a common philosophy anymore. Regeanism is gone and Bushism is in which is really hurting the republican image. Bush promoted pre-emptive war, deficit spending, more government programs.
4. People tend to be naturally collective when on the internet and collectivism lends itself to liberalism.
5. Conservatism/liberalism is dying and socialism/libertarianism is slowly taking its place just like it has in the UK. The parties of the future are going to be more focused on overarching philosophies about government rather than current philosophies which rely on a small set of differences (abortion, gun control, and gay marriage). We can see it happening already with some of obama's very conservative policies and republicans liberal policies. The reason liberalism is more popular is because that is the current sway of society.
Personally I am a libertarian but I will lean towards republicans on some issues like the economy. However, on the war front and marijuana side republicans are becoming more tolerant as society gets more urbanized. Eventually republicans will drop this issue as well as the gay marriage issue. The only really major difference between republicans and democrats will be abortion (which the congress can't legislate anyway) which is why the tea-party is really big. The tea party represents a shift in the republican party away from neo-conservatism towards more libertarian based philosophies. Even when listening to someone as crazy as sarah palin, she is significantly more libertarian than bush ever was. The only question remains is how libertarian will the party be and how socialist will the democratic party be. The answer is of course, as idealogical as possible while still winning the moderate votes. For 2010 congress elections, moderates are agreeing with republicans on the economy and anti-health care legislation which gives the republican party the leeway to move more right and north (north being libertarian, south being authortarian).
Let me guess, You want me to get a Liberal education from a Liberal University, by Liberal professors, composed, paid for, and created by Liberals.
To you, the only credentials you would ever trust are ....... Liberal credentials.
Sorry for the double post but this shit is toooooooo funny.
I think Stephen Colbert is trolling the TeamLiquid forums.
Deadbutmoving KNOWS that Liberal educations breed liberals, I mean LIBERAL is in the name he gave them. But you may check and say, wait... Everyone major Conservative figure basically has gone to a so-called "Liberal" University. But you know why you are wrong? Cause you looked up in a book. Deadbutmoving knows the truth, because he looked it up in his gut! If he knew how to use a book, he would have seen that Universities were originally a conservative movement, and "liberal education" refers to a diversity of teachings. But that was probably written by a LIBERAL, and they lie anyways.
On July 06 2010 10:52 Sleight wrote: Right or left on the spectrum are basically irrelevant. All political discussions boil down to 3 characters.
1) He who knows better. (The loud-mouthed liberal/conservative who are sure Obama is the best/worst)
2) He who doesn't feel like it is anyone's business (The true libertarians/radical lefties who recognize that as soon as the government says who we can and can't marry, they can just as easily say what we can or can't do otherwise)
3) People who are busy having lives and recognize they aren't well-informed (these are theoretical people, none have ever been maintained in captivity)
Cheers!
I quote myself to reiterate how true 1) sounds as this thread continues. Also, I was asked which one I fall into. I like to believe that I am a libertarian, aka 2), but have been accused of liberalism to no end. I am firmly against the US government involvement in restricting civil liberties, which apparently makes me a flaming liberal in this day and age.
My belief is that most of everyone is probably stupid to decide well for themselves, so deciding for someone else is even a worse of an idea.
Also, for the conservatives accusing liberals of this and liberals accusing conservatives of that... You are all idiots. We all are. Accept this. Move on with your lives. And I am sure everyone is wrong on plenty of things, just by virtue of us all being mostly selfish and pretty focused on what would fit in nicely with ourselves.
You've been brainwashed to hate Conservatism. In reality you are as Conservative as can be. The founding fathers of this country based our constitution on a Libertarian Philosophy. Anyone who tells you otherwise is full of crap.
On July 07 2010 03:16 Fwmeh wrote: As to what an European visitor think of sites like http://www.conservapedia.com, I bet most are torn between tears and laughter.
Laughter because they think "americans and their silly capitalism"
Crying because they think "americans and their silly mercedes"
On July 06 2010 10:52 Sleight wrote: Right or left on the spectrum are basically irrelevant. All political discussions boil down to 3 characters.
1) He who knows better. (The loud-mouthed liberal/conservative who are sure Obama is the best/worst)
2) He who doesn't feel like it is anyone's business (The true libertarians/radical lefties who recognize that as soon as the government says who we can and can't marry, they can just as easily say what we can or can't do otherwise)
3) People who are busy having lives and recognize they aren't well-informed (these are theoretical people, none have ever been maintained in captivity)
Cheers!
I quote myself to reiterate how true 1) sounds as this thread continues. Also, I was asked which one I fall into. I like to believe that I am a libertarian, aka 2), but have been accused of liberalism to no end. I am firmly against the US government involvement in restricting civil liberties, which apparently makes me a flaming liberal in this day and age.
My belief is that most of everyone is probably stupid to decide well for themselves, so deciding for someone else is even a worse of an idea.
Also, for the conservatives accusing liberals of this and liberals accusing conservatives of that... You are all idiots. We all are. Accept this. Move on with your lives. And I am sure everyone is wrong on plenty of things, just by virtue of us all being mostly selfish and pretty focused on what would fit in nicely with ourselves.
You've been brainwashed to hate Conservatism. In reality you are as Conservative as can be. The founding fathers of this country based our constitution on a Libertarian Philosophy. Anyone who tells you otherwise is full of crap.
On July 07 2010 06:44 darmousseh wrote: Reasons the Internet is liberal.
1. Liberals don't work and can spend more time on the internet. This is a joke, but in reality, most college students are liberal and college students usually don't work and that means they spend more time on the internet. Don't worry TL, you will all be conservative when you hit 50
2. The media is liberally biased. I think this is known pretty well. If you disagree, watch the different channels, count the # of praises for obama on each channel. If the # of praises is higher than the # of criticisms, then it is liberal, otherwise conservative. I think you will find one conservative network.
3. Conservatives don't have a common philosophy anymore. Regeanism is gone and Bushism is in which is really hurting the republican image. Bush promoted pre-emptive war, deficit spending, more government programs.
4. People tend to be naturally collective when on the internet and collectivism lends itself to liberalism.
5. Conservatism/liberalism is dying and socialism/libertarianism is slowly taking its place just like it has in the UK. The parties of the future are going to be more focused on overarching philosophies about government rather than current philosophies which rely on a small set of differences (abortion, gun control, and gay marriage). We can see it happening already with some of obama's very conservative policies and republicans liberal policies. The reason liberalism is more popular is because that is the current sway of society.
Personally I am a libertarian but I will lean towards republicans on some issues like the economy. However, on the war front and marijuana side republicans are becoming more tolerant as society gets more urbanized. Eventually republicans will drop this issue as well as the gay marriage issue. The only really major difference between republicans and democrats will be abortion (which the congress can't legislate anyway) which is why the tea-party is really big. The tea party represents a shift in the republican party away from neo-conservatism towards more libertarian based philosophies. Even when listening to someone as crazy as sarah palin, she is significantly more libertarian than bush ever was. The only question remains is how libertarian will the party be and how socialist will the democratic party be. The answer is of course, as idealogical as possible while still winning the moderate votes. For 2010 congress elections, moderates are agreeing with republicans on the economy and anti-health care legislation which gives the republican party the leeway to move more right and north (north being libertarian, south being authortarian).
This is the stupidest argument ever. Of course conservatives will see him more negatively thats the nature of politics today.
Also this assumes that you can objectively say hes doing good or bad which isnt possible. Just because someone doesnt hate everything he does doesnt make them a liberal station.
On July 06 2010 10:52 Sleight wrote: Right or left on the spectrum are basically irrelevant. All political discussions boil down to 3 characters.
1) He who knows better. (The loud-mouthed liberal/conservative who are sure Obama is the best/worst)
2) He who doesn't feel like it is anyone's business (The true libertarians/radical lefties who recognize that as soon as the government says who we can and can't marry, they can just as easily say what we can or can't do otherwise)
3) People who are busy having lives and recognize they aren't well-informed (these are theoretical people, none have ever been maintained in captivity)
Cheers!
I quote myself to reiterate how true 1) sounds as this thread continues. Also, I was asked which one I fall into. I like to believe that I am a libertarian, aka 2), but have been accused of liberalism to no end. I am firmly against the US government involvement in restricting civil liberties, which apparently makes me a flaming liberal in this day and age.
My belief is that most of everyone is probably stupid to decide well for themselves, so deciding for someone else is even a worse of an idea.
Also, for the conservatives accusing liberals of this and liberals accusing conservatives of that... You are all idiots. We all are. Accept this. Move on with your lives. And I am sure everyone is wrong on plenty of things, just by virtue of us all being mostly selfish and pretty focused on what would fit in nicely with ourselves.
You've been brainwashed to hate Conservatism. In reality you are as Conservative as can be. The founding fathers of this country based our constitution on a Libertarian Philosophy. Anyone who tells you otherwise is full of crap.
Vote for Ron Paul!!!
Liberals and Ron Paul supporters actually. (I being a part of the latter group)
On July 07 2010 06:44 darmousseh wrote: Reasons the Internet is liberal.
1. Liberals don't work and can spend more time on the internet. This is a joke, but in reality, most college students are liberal and college students usually don't work and that means they spend more time on the internet. Don't worry TL, you will all be conservative when you hit 50
2. The media is liberally biased. I think this is known pretty well. If you disagree, watch the different channels, count the # of praises for obama on each channel. If the # of praises is higher than the # of criticisms, then it is liberal, otherwise conservative. I think you will find one conservative network.
3. Conservatives don't have a common philosophy anymore. Regeanism is gone and Bushism is in which is really hurting the republican image. Bush promoted pre-emptive war, deficit spending, more government programs.
4. People tend to be naturally collective when on the internet and collectivism lends itself to liberalism.
5. Conservatism/liberalism is dying and socialism/libertarianism is slowly taking its place just like it has in the UK. The parties of the future are going to be more focused on overarching philosophies about government rather than current philosophies which rely on a small set of differences (abortion, gun control, and gay marriage). We can see it happening already with some of obama's very conservative policies and republicans liberal policies. The reason liberalism is more popular is because that is the current sway of society.
Personally I am a libertarian but I will lean towards republicans on some issues like the economy. However, on the war front and marijuana side republicans are becoming more tolerant as society gets more urbanized. Eventually republicans will drop this issue as well as the gay marriage issue. The only really major difference between republicans and democrats will be abortion (which the congress can't legislate anyway) which is why the tea-party is really big. The tea party represents a shift in the republican party away from neo-conservatism towards more libertarian based philosophies. Even when listening to someone as crazy as sarah palin, she is significantly more libertarian than bush ever was. The only question remains is how libertarian will the party be and how socialist will the democratic party be. The answer is of course, as idealogical as possible while still winning the moderate votes. For 2010 congress elections, moderates are agreeing with republicans on the economy and anti-health care legislation which gives the republican party the leeway to move more right and north (north being libertarian, south being authortarian).
This is the stupidest argument ever. Of course conservatives will see him more negatively thats the nature of politics today.
That's exactly my point. Media is more biased and this is easy to tell just by listening to the conversations going on in media. When bush we president it was the opposite. Conservative stations praised bush more often while liberal ones criticized more often. Media controls the internet is the connection I should have made.
On July 07 2010 06:44 darmousseh wrote: Reasons the Internet is liberal.
1. Liberals don't work and can spend more time on the internet. This is a joke, but in reality, most college students are liberal and college students usually don't work and that means they spend more time on the internet. Don't worry TL, you will all be conservative when you hit 50
2. The media is liberally biased. I think this is known pretty well. If you disagree, watch the different channels, count the # of praises for obama on each channel. If the # of praises is higher than the # of criticisms, then it is liberal, otherwise conservative. I think you will find one conservative network.
3. Conservatives don't have a common philosophy anymore. Regeanism is gone and Bushism is in which is really hurting the republican image. Bush promoted pre-emptive war, deficit spending, more government programs.
4. People tend to be naturally collective when on the internet and collectivism lends itself to liberalism.
5. Conservatism/liberalism is dying and socialism/libertarianism is slowly taking its place just like it has in the UK. The parties of the future are going to be more focused on overarching philosophies about government rather than current philosophies which rely on a small set of differences (abortion, gun control, and gay marriage). We can see it happening already with some of obama's very conservative policies and republicans liberal policies. The reason liberalism is more popular is because that is the current sway of society.
Personally I am a libertarian but I will lean towards republicans on some issues like the economy. However, on the war front and marijuana side republicans are becoming more tolerant as society gets more urbanized. Eventually republicans will drop this issue as well as the gay marriage issue. The only really major difference between republicans and democrats will be abortion (which the congress can't legislate anyway) which is why the tea-party is really big. The tea party represents a shift in the republican party away from neo-conservatism towards more libertarian based philosophies. Even when listening to someone as crazy as sarah palin, she is significantly more libertarian than bush ever was. The only question remains is how libertarian will the party be and how socialist will the democratic party be. The answer is of course, as idealogical as possible while still winning the moderate votes. For 2010 congress elections, moderates are agreeing with republicans on the economy and anti-health care legislation which gives the republican party the leeway to move more right and north (north being libertarian, south being authortarian).
This is the stupidest argument ever. Of course conservatives will see him more negatively thats the nature of politics today.
That's exactly my point. Media is more biased and this is easy to tell just by listening to the conversations going on in media. When bush we president it was the opposite. Conservative stations praised bush more often while liberal ones criticized more often. Media controls the internet is the connection I should have made.
Conservatives are a million times more biased than the liberal stations. MSNBC is liberally slanted, but its not close to fox news.
On July 07 2010 06:44 Sleight wrote: Sorry for the double post but this shit is toooooooo funny.
I think Stephen Colbert is trolling the TeamLiquid forums.
Deadbutmoving KNOWS that Liberal educations breed liberals, I mean LIBERAL is in the name he gave them. But you may check and say, wait... Everyone major Conservative figure basically has gone to a so-called "Liberal" University. But you know why you are wrong? Cause you looked up in a book. Deadbutmoving knows the truth, because he looked it up in his gut! If he knew how to use a book, he would have seen that Universities were originally a conservative movement, and "liberal education" refers to a diversity of teachings. But that was probably written by a LIBERAL, and they lie anyways.
Trolls are fun
I don't even know who Stephen Colbert is...... and I've never read any conservative books.
It's just a well known fact that Universities are run by Left-wingers. I went to a university before I opened up my own business, and from my experiences it was a very liberal culture, with very liberal professors. You act like all universities are perfectly Unbiased. Either you have never been to one, or you are so brainwashed you can't even understand the differences.
I choose to think independently, I never let other people think for me. Whether they are teachers, family, or even politicians.
You might want to look in a mirror before you call anyone else a troll.
On July 07 2010 06:44 Sleight wrote: Sorry for the double post but this shit is toooooooo funny.
I think Stephen Colbert is trolling the TeamLiquid forums.
Deadbutmoving KNOWS that Liberal educations breed liberals, I mean LIBERAL is in the name he gave them. But you may check and say, wait... Everyone major Conservative figure basically has gone to a so-called "Liberal" University. But you know why you are wrong? Cause you looked up in a book. Deadbutmoving knows the truth, because he looked it up in his gut! If he knew how to use a book, he would have seen that Universities were originally a conservative movement, and "liberal education" refers to a diversity of teachings. But that was probably written by a LIBERAL, and they lie anyways.
Trolls are fun
I don't even know who Stephen Colbert is...... and I've never read any conservative books.
It's just a well known fact that Universities are run by Left-wingers. I went to a university before I opened up my own business, and from my experiences it was a very liberal culture, with very liberal professors. You act like all universities are perfectly Unbiased. Either you have never been to one, or you are so brainwashed you can't even understand the differences.
I choose to think independently, I never let other people think for me. Whether they are teachers, family, or even politicians.
You might want to look in a mirror before you call anyone else a troll.
lol wut? He's really famous. I don't see how you can't have heard of him. You have to be trolling. You have to.
On July 07 2010 06:44 Sleight wrote: Sorry for the double post but this shit is toooooooo funny.
I think Stephen Colbert is trolling the TeamLiquid forums.
Deadbutmoving KNOWS that Liberal educations breed liberals, I mean LIBERAL is in the name he gave them. But you may check and say, wait... Everyone major Conservative figure basically has gone to a so-called "Liberal" University. But you know why you are wrong? Cause you looked up in a book. Deadbutmoving knows the truth, because he looked it up in his gut! If he knew how to use a book, he would have seen that Universities were originally a conservative movement, and "liberal education" refers to a diversity of teachings. But that was probably written by a LIBERAL, and they lie anyways.
Trolls are fun
I don't even know who Stephen Colbert is...... and I've never read any conservative books.
It's just a well known fact that Universities are run by Left-wingers. I went to a university before I opened up my own business, and from my experiences it was a very liberal culture, with very liberal professors. You act like all universities are perfectly Unbiased. Either you have never been to one, or you are so brainwashed you can't even understand the differences.
I choose to think independently, I never let other people think for me. Whether they are teachers, family, or even politicians.
You might want to look in a mirror before you call anyone else a troll.
University I went to was like this.
All liberal studies majors and social science majors filled with tons of liberals. (My history teacher was so liberal and she let us know it). Confirmed by lots of friends (both liberals and conservatives)
Economics professors and most math professors were conservative. Why? Because they realized a centrally plan economy doesn't work (at least thats how they explained it)
Science/sports/arts were mixed and most don't even express their opinion or even show any hints.
Stephen colbert is a political comedian by the way.
On July 07 2010 06:57 Sadist wrote: Conservatives are a million times more biased than the liberal stations. MSNBC is liberally slanted, but its not close to fox news.
How can you call Fox news Conservative? You obviously do not understand what Conservatism is. But then again........... most people don't.
True American Conservatives follow the Principles of the Constitution. Fox News does not. In fact: THERE IS NO NEWS NETWORK THAT IS TRULY CONSERVATIVE.
Example: Ron Paul was without question, the most Conservative candidate for the Republican nomination in 2008. Fox News hated him so much they banned him from debating even though he won most of the polls.
I don't even know who Stephen Colbert is...... and I've never read any conservative books.
It's just a well known fact that Universities are run by Left-wingers. I went to a university before I opened up my own business, and from my experiences it was a very liberal culture, with very liberal professors. You act like all universities are perfectly Unbiased. Either you have never been to one, or you are so brainwashed you can't even understand the differences.
I choose to think independently, I never let other people think for me. Whether they are teachers, family, or even politicians.
You might want to look in a mirror before you call anyone else a troll.
Oh it is YOU who are brain-washed friend. It's a "well-known fact" eh!?!?! Well-known by who? The LIBERAL Media? The LIBERAL country? The LIBERAL reality? God, the LIBERALS even steal our conservative universities. If it weren't for the LIBERAL media, people would know anyone smart enough to be a professor HAS to be a real conservative. They have stolen the conservative thunder again. I asked my common sense and it told me that since I once went to school and I knew conservatives there, universities are truly conservative, but the liberal world tries to discourage wise conservatives from going there.
All of this truth and much more is detailed in my new book, Glenn Beck and the Prisoner of Guantanamo Bay.
I don't even know who Stephen Colbert is...... and I've never read any conservative books.
It's just a well known fact that Universities are run by Left-wingers. I went to a university before I opened up my own business, and from my experiences it was a very liberal culture, with very liberal professors. You act like all universities are perfectly Unbiased. Either you have never been to one, or you are so brainwashed you can't even understand the differences.
I choose to think independently, I never let other people think for me. Whether they are teachers, family, or even politicians.
You might want to look in a mirror before you call anyone else a troll.
Oh it is YOU who are brain-washed friend. It's a "well-known fact" eh!?!?! Well-known by who? The LIBERAL Media? The LIBERAL country? The LIBERAL reality? God, the LIBERALS even steal our conservative universities. If it weren't for the LIBERAL media, people would know anyone smart enough to be a professor HAS to be a real conservative. They have stolen the conservative thunder again. I asked my common sense and it told me that since I once went to school and I knew conservatives there, universities are truly conservative, but the liberal world tries to discourage wise conservatives from going there.
All of this truth and much more is detailed in my new book, Glenn Beck and the Prisoner of Guantanamo Bay.
On July 07 2010 06:47 Sputty wrote: Vote for Ron Paul!!!
Hell Yea, I supported Ron Paul as well. I donated over $1000 to his campaign and I plan to donate another $1000 if he runs in 2012.
Yeah, I know that you did. I was making fun of you for it. You're a joke and always will be. Hopefully you're just trolling people, though.
aw thats mean... I donated to RP too, $50, before I turned anarcho-cap
I made fun of Ron Paul supporters during the presidential primaries and still find it funny how many 'turned' into various shades of socialists and anarchists. I think a lot of them just aren't really convicted to anything but 'change' even if they don't know what they want in it and some have preconcieved notions of economic freedom and others have notions of equality neither are thought through any significant amount. It may be mean but after a while of slamming into libertarians that won't accept anything and just spout bullshit they don't understand all you can do is laugh at them.
Look at Mr. Common Sense over there, too stupid to understand what liberal education means, the difference between a modern political liberal and the institution of liberal education yet he's willing to state proudly he knows all. All you can do is laugh at these people and that's that. There is no debate, nothing to gain from discussion, stating all the examples of great economic 'freedom' that led to huge failures, like 19th century America in the Gilded Age and the wage slavery, local environmental destruction, disregard for personal liberties, etc. Current Keynesian policies make the economy ridiculously more resilient to collapse than the collapses of the past, that the current economic crisis could've been much worse and was brought on in the first place by deregulation in a single large economy. None of this will ever sink in. That's why I'm mean to libertarians They have no evidence to back up any of their claims, they lack any historical examples to say 'it worked here' all they do is shout about the boogeyman of communism and founding fathers and liberty
On July 07 2010 06:45 deadbutmoving wrote: The founding fathers of this country based our constitution on a Libertarian Philosophy.
No, no they did not. There were certainly some individuals who were quite liberal for their time among the framers, but the Constitution was a document devised by politicians for pragmatic reasons.
The most libertarian parts of the Constitution are amendments, and until 1868 they didn't even legally protect individuals from the entities that had been the most likely violators of rights in the early years of the republic.
On July 07 2010 06:57 Sadist wrote: Conservatives are a million times more biased than the liberal stations. MSNBC is liberally slanted, but its not close to fox news.
How can you call Fox news Conservative? You obviously do not understand what Conservatism is. But then again........... most people don't.
True American Conservatives follow the Principles of the Constitution. Fox News does not. In fact: THERE IS NO NEWS NETWORK THAT IS TRULY CONSERVATIVE.
Example: Ron Paul was without question, the most Conservative candidate for the Republican nomination in 2008. Fox News hated him so much they banned him from debating even though he won most of the polls.
blah blah, you can say what you want about "true" conservatism but we are just arguing over definitions.
I agree with Ron Paul on quite a few things, one being cutting military spending, but he and his son are kooks for thinking free market solves everything. Fox News pushes the conservative Christian agenda =).
I don't know about other countries, but in the USA we make far too much of this conservatism vs. liberalism bs. These terms are just tools used by political interests to wrangle people into their policy tents. Liberalism entices the masses in by promising free stuff, and conservatism does the same by promising freedom. But when they eventually get to work, the bulk of these politicians are mostly just fighting for power.
I understand that there are competing philosophies when it comes to how to solve problems, but I think it is absolutely ridiculous to expect, and even vote for, politicians who promise to spend their time exasperating these differences, (as seems to me to be the custom in USA politics). Why not vote for people who promise to use their qualified understanding of the intellectual conundrums behind policy debates to reach an answer that practically solves the problem with everyone's concerns in mind?
Unfortunately, here in the States, one could almost live an entire life without even realizing this is possible. Instead we have throngs of people flocking after populist and counter-productive mouthpieces like Sarah Palin, while the federal government is filing completely redundant lawsuits against the governments of its own states over legislations that are already tied up in privately filed-suits, seemingly for no other reason than to promote idealogical division.
And the game continues, and whoever gets in power mostly focuses on pulling policy in their direction as quickly as possible while they still have the authority and clout to do so, without stopping to the consider quality of the "solutions" they are churning out. The system isn't broken, the system works just fine. We the people just haven't figured out how to work it. We fall for tricks and we vote for whoever makes us feel either the most angry or the most hopeful. Unfortunately, problems aren't solved by either anger or hope, but rather by thoughtful understanding and mature compromise.
I have an Uncle who ended a sort-of related discussion by saying: "unfortunately as a philosopher I have arrived at the completely unsatisfactory position that in the ongoing debate between liberals and conservatives, both sides are right... especially when they criticize the other side." The more I have thought about it, the more I realize just how profound that statement was.
On July 07 2010 06:47 Sputty wrote: Vote for Ron Paul!!!
Hell Yea, I supported Ron Paul as well. I donated over $1000 to his campaign and I plan to donate another $1000 if he runs in 2012.
Yeah, I know that you did. I was making fun of you for it. You're a joke and always will be. Hopefully you're just trolling people, though.
aw thats mean... I donated to RP too, $50, before I turned anarcho-cap
I made fun of Ron Paul supporters during the presidential primaries and still find it funny how many 'turned' into various shades of socialists and anarchists. I think a lot of them just aren't really convicted to anything but 'change' even if they don't know what they want in it and some have preconcieved notions of economic freedom and others have notions of equality neither are thought through any significant amount. It may be mean but after a while of slamming into libertarians that won't accept anything and just spout bullshit they don't understand all you can do is laugh at them.
Look at Mr. Common Sense over there, too stupid to understand what liberal education means, the difference between a modern political liberal and the institution of liberal education yet he's willing to state proudly he knows all. All you can do is laugh at these people and that's that. There is no debate, nothing to gain from discussion, stating all the examples of great economic 'freedom' that led to huge failures, like 19th century America in the Gilded Age and the wage slavery, local environmental destruction, disregard for personal liberties, etc. Current Keynesian policies make the economy ridiculously more resilient to collapse than the collapses of the past, that the current economic crisis could've been much worse and was brought on in the first place by deregulation in a single large economy. None of this will ever sink in. That's why I'm mean to libertarians They have no evidence to back up any of their claims, they lack any historical examples to say 'it worked here' all they do is shout about the boogeyman of communism and founding fathers and liberty
Well you yourself is stating history as you know it for a fact that free market brought about something you consider undesirable. Aren't you being a bit of a know-it-all without first studying the austrian side of the story?
I avoid such question by not arguing empirically at all my friend. Or else it's just as you said, no conclusions are ever made, because no proof can be produced in such way (see critical rationalism)
On July 07 2010 06:57 Sadist wrote: Conservatives are a million times more biased than the liberal stations. MSNBC is liberally slanted, but its not close to fox news.
How can you call Fox news Conservative? You obviously do not understand what Conservatism is. But then again........... most people don't.
True American Conservatives follow the Principles of the Constitution. Fox News does not. In fact: THERE IS NO NEWS NETWORK THAT IS TRULY CONSERVATIVE.
Example: Ron Paul was without question, the most Conservative candidate for the Republican nomination in 2008. Fox News hated him so much they banned him from debating even though he won most of the polls.
Definitions, definitions. When posting something like this please stick to common definitions or define your own. We all understand what you mean mostly, but it can be confusing.
Common definition of conservatism: A person who generally believes in principles of politics in conserving society and with a classical liberal view of economics.
Regan version of conservatism: A person who believes in the limit of government intervention into people's lives. (Ron Paul is this kind of conservative)
Neo-conservatisim: A new type of conservatism that elicits a standard expected behavior from both domestic and foreign entities. (This is bushism)
christian-conservatism: A type of conservatism emphasizing explicit moral behaviour and economic freedom, however, generally does not expect that behaviour of others. (Sarah palinish)
Note these definitions aren't 100% accurate and can never be, but please be explicit when using confusing terms.
On July 07 2010 07:05 darmousseh wrote: University I went to was like this.
All liberal studies majors and social science majors filled with tons of liberals. (My history teacher was so liberal and she let us know it). Confirmed by lots of friends (both liberals and conservatives)
Economics professors and most math professors were conservative. Why? Because they realized a centrally plan economy doesn't work (at least thats how they explained it)
Science/sports/arts were mixed and most don't even express their opinion or even show any hints.
Stephen colbert is a political comedian by the way.
The name of the school i went to? CSU Stanislaus.
I agree, My economics professor was more Conservative than the others. But most of my other professors were very Liberal.
In my state of Minnesota, The Universities get a lot of subsidies from the Government. Because of this, they are financially obligated to be Anti-Conservative. Sadly, this is how much of the Universities in America are being founded. Beware...... the corruption of Government.
On July 07 2010 07:26 ZerglingSoup wrote: I don't know about other countries, but in the USA we make far too much of this conservatism vs. liberalism bs. These terms are just tools used by political interests to wrangle people into their policy tents. Liberalism entices the masses in by promising free stuff, and conservatism does the same by promising freedom. But when they eventually get to work, the bulk of these politicians are mostly just fighting for power.
I understand that there are competing philosophies when it comes to how to solve problems, but I think it is absolutely ridiculous to expect, and even vote for, politicians who promise to spend their time exasperating these differences, (as seems to me to be the custom in USA politics). Why not vote for people who promise to use their qualified understanding of the intellectual conundrums behind policy debates to reach an answer that practically solves the problem with everyone's concerns in mind?
Unfortunately, here in the States, one could almost live an entire life without even realizing this is possible. Instead we have throngs of people flocking after populist and counter-productive mouthpieces like Sarah Palin, while the federal government is filing completely redundant lawsuits against the governments of its own states over legislations that are already tied up in privately filed-suits, seemingly for no other reason than to promote idealogical division.
And the game continues, and whoever gets in power mostly focuses on pulling policy in their direction as quickly as possible while they still have the authority and clout to do so, without stopping to the consider quality of the "solutions" they are churning out. The system isn't broken, the system works just fine. We the people just haven't figured out how to work it. We fall for tricks and we vote for whoever makes us feel either the most angry or the most hopeful. Unfortunately, problems aren't solved by either anger or hope, but rather by thoughtful understanding and mature compromise.
I have an Uncle who ended a sort-of related discussion by saying: "unfortunately as a philosopher I have arrived at the completely unsatisfactory position that in the ongoing debate between liberals and conservatives, both sides are right... especially when they criticize the other side." The more I have thought about it, the more I realize just how profound that statement was.
Agree completely, you can blame Ronald Reagan for this though by turning "Liberal" into a bad word ;|
I don't even know who Stephen Colbert is...... and I've never read any conservative books.
It's just a well known fact that Universities are run by Left-wingers. I went to a university before I opened up my own business, and from my experiences it was a very liberal culture, with very liberal professors. You act like all universities are perfectly Unbiased. Either you have never been to one, or you are so brainwashed you can't even understand the differences.
I choose to think independently, I never let other people think for me. Whether they are teachers, family, or even politicians.
You might want to look in a mirror before you call anyone else a troll.
Oh it is YOU who are brain-washed friend. It's a "well-known fact" eh!?!?! Well-known by who? The LIBERAL Media? The LIBERAL country? The LIBERAL reality? God, the LIBERALS even steal our conservative universities. If it weren't for the LIBERAL media, people would know anyone smart enough to be a professor HAS to be a real conservative. They have stolen the conservative thunder again. I asked my common sense and it told me that since I once went to school and I knew conservatives there, universities are truly conservative, but the liberal world tries to discourage wise conservatives from going there.
All of this truth and much more is detailed in my new book, Glenn Beck and the Prisoner of Guantanamo Bay.
eh... What are you talking about. It IS a well known fact that university faculties and professors are very left leaning. Unlike media bias where there is constant bickering between liberals and conservatives, there is no debate that our nation's teachers lean to the left. That IS common knowledge.
On July 07 2010 06:45 deadbutmoving wrote: The founding fathers of this country based our constitution on a Libertarian Philosophy.
No, no they did not. There were certainly some individuals who were quite liberal for their time among the framers, but the Constitution was a document devised by politicians for pragmatic reasons.
The most libertarian parts of the Constitution are amendments, and until 1868 they didn't even legally protect individuals from the entities that had been the most likely violators of rights in the early years of the republic.
Maybe you should go back and read it along with The Federalist Papers. The Constitution was created to puts Specific restraints on the Federal government.
How can you say the amendments were libertarian but the constitution was not? The Constitution is the amendments, if you didn't know.
However, you are right, some of the founding fathers were not perfect. But it was the first step, and I'm glad it happened. I'm glad to support it's intent and it's philosophy.
On July 07 2010 07:26 ZerglingSoup wrote: I don't know about other countries, but in the USA we make far too much of this conservatism vs. liberalism bs. These terms are just tools used by political interests to wrangle people into their policy tents. Liberalism entices the masses in by promising free stuff, and conservatism does the same by promising freedom. But when they eventually get to work, the bulk of these politicians are mostly just fighting for power.
I understand that there are competing philosophies when it comes to how to solve problems, but I think it is absolutely ridiculous to expect, and even vote for, politicians who promise to spend their time exasperating these differences, (as seems to me to be the custom in USA politics). Why not vote for people who promise to use their qualified understanding of the intellectual conundrums behind policy debates to reach an answer that practically solves the problem with everyone's concerns in mind?
Unfortunately, here in the States, one could almost live an entire life without even realizing this is possible. Instead we have throngs of people flocking after populist and counter-productive mouthpieces like Sarah Palin, while the federal government is filing completely redundant lawsuits against the governments of its own states over legislations that are already tied up in privately filed-suits, seemingly for no other reason than to promote idealogical division.
And the game continues, and whoever gets in power mostly focuses on pulling policy in their direction as quickly as possible while they still have the authority and clout to do so, without stopping to the consider quality of the "solutions" they are churning out. The system isn't broken, the system works just fine. We the people just haven't figured out how to work it. We fall for tricks and we vote for whoever makes us feel either the most angry or the most hopeful. Unfortunately, problems aren't solved by either anger or hope, but rather by thoughtful understanding and mature compromise.
I have an Uncle who ended a sort-of related discussion by saying: "unfortunately as a philosopher I have arrived at the completely unsatisfactory position that in the ongoing debate between liberals and conservatives, both sides are right... especially when they criticize the other side." The more I have thought about it, the more I realize just how profound that statement was.
Agree completely, you can blame Ronald Reagan for this though by turning "Liberal" into a bad word ;|
I could. I don't remember much of Reagan's election campaign. I know it took place before the Berlin wall fell down and that everyone saw things a little differently back then. I'd be more inclined to blame western society's insistence always having a bad guy for the good guys to fight against. But what I'd really like to do is simply stop pointing fingers, shrug my shoulders and ask, "so where do we go from here?"
On July 07 2010 07:26 Sadist wrote: I agree with Ron Paul on quite a few things, one being cutting military spending, but he and his son are kooks for thinking free market solves everything. Fox News pushes the conservative Christian agenda =).
I wouldn't say they think the free market fixes everything, but rather that over time, a free market finds the cheapest and most efficient way to do something. Waste in any fashion, creates expenses, and if you are wasteful, someone will eventually come along who can do it better than you, and put you out of business. Now what do you do about real people while the market is in the waiting period is something for debate, but I think you could agree that given some time, a free market will find better solutions to problems than government. Having the government do things takes care of minimum requirements while creating long-term problems, free market is more of a long-term investment that the overall quality of human life will be better in the long term, while there are less guarantees for a minimum standard for all people. Which you prefer kinda depends on your outlook.
note: gross simplifications and over-generalizations are above. but I think the basic points are solid.
"The most liberal faculties are those devoted to the humanities (81 percent) and social sciences (75 percent), according to the study. But liberals outnumbered conservatives even among engineering faculty (51 percent to 19 percent) and business faculty (49 percent to 39 percent)."
On July 07 2010 06:45 deadbutmoving wrote: The founding fathers of this country based our constitution on a Libertarian Philosophy.
No, no they did not. There were certainly some individuals who were quite liberal for their time among the framers, but the Constitution was a document devised by politicians for pragmatic reasons.
The most libertarian parts of the Constitution are amendments, and until 1868 they didn't even legally protect individuals from the entities that had been the most likely violators of rights in the early years of the republic.
Maybe you should go back and read it along with The Federalist Papers. The Constitution was created to puts Specific restraints on the Federal government.
How can you say the amendments were libertarian but the constitution was not? The Constitution is the amendments, if you didn't know.
However, you are right, some of the founding fathers were not perfect. But it was the first step, and I'm glad it happened. I'm glad to support it's intent and it's philosophy.
The only reason that the Constitution was even written was the belief that there needed to be a stronger federal government than the one that had existed under the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union. The Constitution gave Congress the power to raise armies and actually support them through taxation!
Amendments are a part of the Constitution, but not a part of the original document. Many anti-federalists needed the assurance that a bill of rights would be included in order to vote to ratify, but the federalists among the framers obviously did not think it necessary. See Federalist 84. Honestly I find it amusing that you speak of the libertarianism of the framers and then tell me to read the federalist papers. Alexander Hamilton does not scream "libertarianism" to me.
But there is nothing extraordinarily libertarian about amendments which protect the individual from the federal government in a time when the state government is the most likely entity to be violating those rights. And I don't see what is so libertarian about slavery. This was not a idealistic document. It was a pragmatic federalist document.
Nursing is what sociologists call “gender typed.” Mr. Gross said that “professors and a number of other fields are politically typed.” Journalism, art, fashion, social work and therapy are dominated by liberals; while law enforcement, farming, dentistry, medicine and the military attract more conservatives.
people who do work "law enforcement, farming, dentistry, medicine and the military" conservative people who don't do work " Journalism, art, fashion, social work and therapy" liberal
On July 07 2010 07:22 Sputty wrote: I made fun of Ron Paul supporters during the presidential primaries and still find it funny how many 'turned' into various shades of socialists and anarchists. I think a lot of them just aren't really convicted to anything but 'change' even if they don't know what they want in it and some have preconcieved notions of economic freedom and others have notions of equality neither are thought through any significant amount. It may be mean but after a while of slamming into libertarians that won't accept anything and just spout bullshit they don't understand all you can do is laugh at them.
Look at Mr. Common Sense over there, too stupid to understand what liberal education means, the difference between a modern political liberal and the institution of liberal education yet he's willing to state proudly he knows all. All you can do is laugh at these people and that's that. There is no debate, nothing to gain from discussion, stating all the examples of great economic 'freedom' that led to huge failures, like 19th century America in the Gilded Age and the wage slavery, local environmental destruction, disregard for personal liberties, etc. Current Keynesian policies make the economy ridiculously more resilient to collapse than the collapses of the past, that the current economic crisis could've been much worse and was brought on in the first place by deregulation in a single large economy. None of this will ever sink in. That's why I'm mean to libertarians They have no evidence to back up any of their claims, they lack any historical examples to say 'it worked here' all they do is shout about the boogeyman of communism and founding fathers and liberty
Can you prove that socialism works? The last 30 years have marked the end of one socialist empire after another. Maybe if you actually read history you would learn about that.
The financial crisis was caused by your beloved Government. (Fannie May and Freddie Mac) This fact can only be seen by someone who questions the government and scrutinizes them.
The biggest polluter in the world is the US Government. But somehow this fact doesn't enter your head, it actually makes you trust the Government even more.
I choose to allow people to engage in freedom. The freedom to buy and sell whatever they want. You seem to think that the government can run everything because it's infallible, just because it was elected.
Let me tell you something that they never tell you in school: The government consists of people and thus have all the weaknesses as any human. Being elected does not make you an Infallible God.
On July 07 2010 03:16 Fwmeh wrote: It would seem to me that this thread has evolved into (yet another) economics thread, which is somehow sad. Economics, just like most social sciences, is severely lacking in its predicting capabilities, and most large-scale tastings would likely be very unpleasant for those involved. Frankly, the usefulness of most models is simply too hard to evaluate.
Therefore, one should be careful when claiming a society need to be a certain way for economic reasons. In most cases, the data supporting such a claim is insufficient, at least from a natural scientific point of view.
Austrian Economics agrees with you. The future can't be evaluated because the ends and means of every individual changes constantly
With that in mind, I think that man (or its representative, the government) should aim to control "the market" as far as is feasible, while still allowing it to function. What it Europe might be called a mixed economy. I do personally not hold any sympathy for the idea that "the market" is what is determine mans deserts.
A centralized, controlled economy simply DOES NOT WORK. The soviet union taught us that. The more control the government tries to implement, the worse the economy does.
[...] if a market is "too free", it doesn't get as powerful and is much more instable in many situations.
like?
Cite an example of a free market that worked properly.
Free Market is an utopia, just like anarchy which you like so much. It makes the claim that everyone will do everything correctly. Unfortunately, shit happens if you just let people do their things.
But then again you don't have the slightest clue about how people would behave in a free market and you make some more assumptions... It's pretty weird that you don't even show any doubt whatsoever, given that you make SO MANY assumptions.
I don't believe in no government, and the free market system isn't perfect, but it's done a helluva lot better than communism. People aren't perfect, so any system will not be perfect. But it's an historical fact that governments that try to control their economies cause WAY more harm than good and the more power a government has, the more corrupt it becomes.
On July 07 2010 07:22 Sputty wrote: I made fun of Ron Paul supporters during the presidential primaries and still find it funny how many 'turned' into various shades of socialists and anarchists. I think a lot of them just aren't really convicted to anything but 'change' even if they don't know what they want in it and some have preconcieved notions of economic freedom and others have notions of equality neither are thought through any significant amount. It may be mean but after a while of slamming into libertarians that won't accept anything and just spout bullshit they don't understand all you can do is laugh at them.
Look at Mr. Common Sense over there, too stupid to understand what liberal education means, the difference between a modern political liberal and the institution of liberal education yet he's willing to state proudly he knows all. All you can do is laugh at these people and that's that. There is no debate, nothing to gain from discussion, stating all the examples of great economic 'freedom' that led to huge failures, like 19th century America in the Gilded Age and the wage slavery, local environmental destruction, disregard for personal liberties, etc. Current Keynesian policies make the economy ridiculously more resilient to collapse than the collapses of the past, that the current economic crisis could've been much worse and was brought on in the first place by deregulation in a single large economy. None of this will ever sink in. That's why I'm mean to libertarians They have no evidence to back up any of their claims, they lack any historical examples to say 'it worked here' all they do is shout about the boogeyman of communism and founding fathers and liberty
Can you prove that socialism works? The last 30 years have marked the end of one socialist empire after another. Maybe if you actually read history you would learn about that.
The financial crisis was caused by your beloved Government. (Fannie May and Freddie Mac) This fact can only be seen by someone who questions the government and scrutinizes them.
The biggest polluter in the world is the US Government. But somehow this fact doesn't enter your head, it actually makes you trust the Government even more.
I choose to allow people to engage in freedom. The freedom to buy and sell whatever they want. You seem to think that the government can run everything because it's infallible, just because it was elected.
Let me tell you something that they never tell you in school: The government consists of people and thus have all the weaknesses as any human. Being elected does not make you an Infallible God.
Keynes isn't socialism per se but the belief that with a few mathematical provisions you can effectively prevent general market mistakes and promote greater production and consumption etc. etc. through a few monetary alterations
My problem with keynes is that it completely overlooks the broken window fallacy, for one... that's one pretty obvious criticism that every keynesian simply walks over by saying that government spending can be effectively equivalent to investment.
But building tanks isn't an investment imo, nor is war. Many things, if not all things that government does, can't be considered investment nor consumption, for it doesn't come out of the market, it's a completely reallocation of resources that would otherwise be spent in what can be called investment. Basically, investment is only investment in the eyes of the investor, and the government doesn't have it's own money to invest - it can only take money from others, at which point it's no more investment than a thief buying crack with the money from a stolen stereo. I haven't read a good answer for that yet.
On July 07 2010 03:16 Fwmeh wrote: It would seem to me that this thread has evolved into (yet another) economics thread, which is somehow sad. Economics, just like most social sciences, is severely lacking in its predicting capabilities, and most large-scale tastings would likely be very unpleasant for those involved. Frankly, the usefulness of most models is simply too hard to evaluate.
Therefore, one should be careful when claiming a society need to be a certain way for economic reasons. In most cases, the data supporting such a claim is insufficient, at least from a natural scientific point of view.
Austrian Economics agrees with you. The future can't be evaluated because the ends and means of every individual changes constantly
With that in mind, I think that man (or its representative, the government) should aim to control "the market" as far as is feasible, while still allowing it to function. What it Europe might be called a mixed economy. I do personally not hold any sympathy for the idea that "the market" is what is determine mans deserts.
A centralized, controlled economy simply DOES NOT WORK. The soviet union taught us that. The more control the government tries to implement, the worse the economy does.
[...] if a market is "too free", it doesn't get as powerful and is much more instable in many situations.
like?
Cite an example of a free market that worked properly.
Free Market is an utopia, just like anarchy which you like so much. It makes the claim that everyone will do everything correctly. Unfortunately, shit happens if you just let people do their things.
But then again you don't have the slightest clue about how people would behave in a free market and you make some more assumptions... It's pretty weird that you don't even show any doubt whatsoever, given that you make SO MANY assumptions.
I don't believe in no government, and the free market system isn't perfect, but it's done a helluva lot better than communism. People aren't perfect, so any system will not be perfect. But it's an historical fact that governments that try to control their economies cause WAY more harm than good and the more power a government has, the more corrupt it becomes.
No it's not, all modern governments control their economies in numerous ways, most developed countries do it for the best.
Deregulation isn't powerful enough to cause a financial meltdown. In fact, there are no natural ways for a meltdown to occur. The only things that can cause a financial crises is financial policies. Things like interest rates, money supply, and government spending.
1. Interest rates are fixed. This means that the free market either over-invests (if interest rates are too low) or under-invests (if they are too high). In either case, it is worse than an unfixed rate.
2. Money Supply and debt. The way the government fights inflation is by borrowing the money instead of just printing it. They make a promise to pay off this debt and inflation is staved off. However, there is a short term problem that occurs when the debt to gdp ratio is really high which is over-consumption because of short term inflation. When new money hits the market, prices go up momentarily until the market deflates again. Right now we are in the middle of that inflationary period.
3. Ties into point #2.
One last thing to note is that it was previously thought that inflation=high employment and deflation=low employment which was a theory incorrectly asserted by Keynesian economists. Unemployment has to do with supply and demand as it is just a commodity like everything else. The problem is that right now, companies are not willing to invest any resources into development because of the fear of inflation. Also since demand dropped for goods and services, normally a wage drop would occur in order to balance out employment, however, another price fix called minimum wage exists to ensure that those least valued in the economy don't have a job. (I also wrote about how minimum wage is discriminatory as well in a blog post).
On July 07 2010 03:16 Fwmeh wrote: It would seem to me that this thread has evolved into (yet another) economics thread, which is somehow sad. Economics, just like most social sciences, is severely lacking in its predicting capabilities, and most large-scale tastings would likely be very unpleasant for those involved. Frankly, the usefulness of most models is simply too hard to evaluate.
Therefore, one should be careful when claiming a society need to be a certain way for economic reasons. In most cases, the data supporting such a claim is insufficient, at least from a natural scientific point of view.
Austrian Economics agrees with you. The future can't be evaluated because the ends and means of every individual changes constantly
With that in mind, I think that man (or its representative, the government) should aim to control "the market" as far as is feasible, while still allowing it to function. What it Europe might be called a mixed economy. I do personally not hold any sympathy for the idea that "the market" is what is determine mans deserts.
A centralized, controlled economy simply DOES NOT WORK. The soviet union taught us that. The more control the government tries to implement, the worse the economy does.
[...] if a market is "too free", it doesn't get as powerful and is much more instable in many situations.
like?
Cite an example of a free market that worked properly.
Free Market is an utopia, just like anarchy which you like so much. It makes the claim that everyone will do everything correctly. Unfortunately, shit happens if you just let people do their things.
But then again you don't have the slightest clue about how people would behave in a free market and you make some more assumptions... It's pretty weird that you don't even show any doubt whatsoever, given that you make SO MANY assumptions.
I don't believe in no government, and the free market system isn't perfect, but it's done a helluva lot better than communism. People aren't perfect, so any system will not be perfect. But it's an historical fact that governments that try to control their economies cause WAY more harm than good and the more power a government has, the more corrupt it becomes.
Unless you are aware of some classless, stateless society that I am not, that word does not mean what you think it means.
There hasn't been a free market system as much as there hasn't been a communist system to the standards that each philosophy's supporters want it to be... so the whole empirical thing... I'd rather have it dropped
On July 07 2010 07:51 Mindcrime wrote: The only reason that the Constitution was even written was the belief that there needed to be a stronger federal government than the one that had existed under the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union. The Constitution gave Congress the power to raise armies and actually support them through taxation!
Amendments are a part of the Constitution, but not a part of the original document. Many anti-federalists needed the assurance that a bill of rights would be included in order to vote to ratify, but the federalists among the framers obviously did not think it necessary. See Federalist 84. Honestly I find it amusing that you speak of the libertarianism of the framers and then tell me to read the federalist papers. Alexander Hamilton does not scream "libertarianism" to me.
But there is nothing extraordinarily libertarian about amendments which protect the individual from the federal government in a time when the state government is the most likely entity to be violating those rights. And I don't see what is so libertarian about slavery. This was not a idealistic document. It was a pragmatic federalist document.
Wrong! (I'm starting to believe that you're a troll.)
The 16th Amendment (the power to collect taxes) was not ratified until 1913.
The bill of rights was specifically written to protect individual rights like: the Freedom of speech, The press, Bear arms, trial by jury, Unjust seizures, Warrant searches. Are you saying these are not individual rights given by the constitution?
The anti-federalists got what they wanted: the 9th and 10th Amendment The federal government has Enumerated powers and all other rights are reserved to the states or to the people. Again weakening the federal government even more.
Slavery was not mentioned in the constitution because it was a divisive issue. But bear in mind that upon winning the revolutionary war, many of the northern states lead by founding fathers like Benjamin Franklin, immediately worked to make slavery illegal in their home states.
To you the constitution has no meaning because its founders weren't perfect. To me The constitution is taken literally and I remember men like Benjamin Franklin who also took the constitution literally.
On July 07 2010 07:51 Mindcrime wrote: The only reason that the Constitution was even written was the belief that there needed to be a stronger federal government than the one that had existed under the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union. The Constitution gave Congress the power to raise armies and actually support them through taxation!
Amendments are a part of the Constitution, but not a part of the original document. Many anti-federalists needed the assurance that a bill of rights would be included in order to vote to ratify, but the federalists among the framers obviously did not think it necessary. See Federalist 84. Honestly I find it amusing that you speak of the libertarianism of the framers and then tell me to read the federalist papers. Alexander Hamilton does not scream "libertarianism" to me.
But there is nothing extraordinarily libertarian about amendments which protect the individual from the federal government in a time when the state government is the most likely entity to be violating those rights. And I don't see what is so libertarian about slavery. This was not a idealistic document. It was a pragmatic federalist document.
Wrong! (I'm starting to believe that you're a troll.)
The 16th Amendment (the power to collect taxes) was not ratified until 1913.
The bill of rights was specifically written to protect individual rights like: the Freedom of speech, The press, Bear arms, trial by jury, Unjust seizures, Warrant searches. Are you saying these are not individual rights given by the constitution?
The anti-federalists got what they wanted: the 9th and 10th Amendment The federal government has Enumerated powers and all other rights are reserved to the states or to the people. Again weakening the federal government even more.
Slavery was not mentioned in the constitution because it was a divisive issue. But bear in mind that upon winning the revolutionary war, many of the northern states lead by founding fathers like Benjamin Franklin, immediately worked to make slavery illegal in their home states.
To you the constitution has no meaning because its founders weren't perfect. To me The constitution is taken literally and I remember men like Benjamin Franklin who also took the constitution literally.
Uhh... none of those disprove that the constitution convention was held to create a stronger federal government.
On July 07 2010 08:07 Mindcrime wrote: Unless you are aware of some classless, stateless society that I am not, that word does not mean what you think it means.
In theory Communism is supposed to have no government. In practice Communism has the worst and most tyrannical governments because tyranny is required to promote equality and fairness.
In reality Communism creates 2 classes: The Government and everyone else. This is no different than monarchy: The Lords and the Serfs.
On July 07 2010 08:16 Romantic wrote: Uhh... none of those disprove that the constitution convention was held to create a stronger federal government.
I'm gonna try one last time to educate people:
Libertarianism = extremely limited government as opposed to anarchy which = No government
I am not an anarchist and most of the founding father weren't either. The convention was held to discuss the role of the federal government not it's destruction.
I actually believe in the federal governments role of Extremely Limited powers: Maintain armed forces and respond to disasters.
Remember Libertarianism does not equal Anarchy......
On July 07 2010 07:51 Mindcrime wrote: The only reason that the Constitution was even written was the belief that there needed to be a stronger federal government than the one that had existed under the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union. The Constitution gave Congress the power to raise armies and actually support them through taxation!
Amendments are a part of the Constitution, but not a part of the original document. Many anti-federalists needed the assurance that a bill of rights would be included in order to vote to ratify, but the federalists among the framers obviously did not think it necessary. See Federalist 84. Honestly I find it amusing that you speak of the libertarianism of the framers and then tell me to read the federalist papers. Alexander Hamilton does not scream "libertarianism" to me.
But there is nothing extraordinarily libertarian about amendments which protect the individual from the federal government in a time when the state government is the most likely entity to be violating those rights. And I don't see what is so libertarian about slavery. This was not a idealistic document. It was a pragmatic federalist document.
Wrong! (I'm starting to believe that you're a troll.)
The 16th Amendment (the power to collect taxes) was not ratified until 1913.
Have you even fucking read the constitution?
Article I, Section 8, Clause 1
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Your understanding of what the Sixteenth Amendment did is nonexistent. It did not even grant the federal government the power to collect income tax. The federal government always had that power. What the Sixteenth Amendment did was lift the apportionment requirement in Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 which made collecting an income tax practically, not theoretically, impossible.
The bill of rights was specifically written to protect individual rights like: the Freedom of speech, The press, Bear arms, trial by jury, Unjust seizures, Warrant searches. Are you saying these are not individual rights given by the constitution?
I am saying that until 1868, those amendments only protected you from the federal government.
The anti-federalists got what they wanted: the 9th and 10th Amendment The federal government has Enumerated powers and all other rights are reserved to the states or to the people. Again weakening the federal government even more.
Weakening? not in Hamilton's view, and it certainly did not make for a weaker government than the one that had existed under the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union.
Slavery was not mentioned in the constitution because it was a divisive issue. But bear in mind that upon winning the revolutionary war, many of the northern states lead by founding fathers like Benjamin Franklin, immediately worked to make slavery illegal in their home states.
Slavery was not called as such in the Constitution but it most certainly was mentioned. Read Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 and Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3.
To you the constitution has no meaning because its founders weren't perfect. To me The constitution is taken literally and I remember men like Benjamin Franklin who also took the constitution literally.
Oh, it has meaning. It is the law. It is not, however, a divine text.
On July 07 2010 08:07 Mindcrime wrote: Unless you are aware of some classless, stateless society that I am not, that word does not mean what you think it means.
In theory Communism is supposed to have no government. In practice Communism has the worst and most tyrannical governments because tyranny is required to promote equality and fairness.
In reality Communism creates 2 classes: The Government and everyone else. This is no different than monarchy: The Lords and the Serfs.
Communism in practice? Go read the constitutions of the USSR, the PRC, Cuba etc. and tell me where any of them claimed to be putting communism into practice.
On July 07 2010 07:22 Sputty wrote: I made fun of Ron Paul supporters during the presidential primaries and still find it funny how many 'turned' into various shades of socialists and anarchists. I think a lot of them just aren't really convicted to anything but 'change' even if they don't know what they want in it and some have preconcieved notions of economic freedom and others have notions of equality neither are thought through any significant amount. It may be mean but after a while of slamming into libertarians that won't accept anything and just spout bullshit they don't understand all you can do is laugh at them.
Look at Mr. Common Sense over there, too stupid to understand what liberal education means, the difference between a modern political liberal and the institution of liberal education yet he's willing to state proudly he knows all. All you can do is laugh at these people and that's that. There is no debate, nothing to gain from discussion, stating all the examples of great economic 'freedom' that led to huge failures, like 19th century America in the Gilded Age and the wage slavery, local environmental destruction, disregard for personal liberties, etc. Current Keynesian policies make the economy ridiculously more resilient to collapse than the collapses of the past, that the current economic crisis could've been much worse and was brought on in the first place by deregulation in a single large economy. None of this will ever sink in. That's why I'm mean to libertarians They have no evidence to back up any of their claims, they lack any historical examples to say 'it worked here' all they do is shout about the boogeyman of communism and founding fathers and liberty
Can you prove that socialism works? The last 30 years have marked the end of one socialist empire after another. Maybe if you actually read history you would learn about that.
The financial crisis was caused by your beloved Government. (Fannie May and Freddie Mac) This fact can only be seen by someone who questions the government and scrutinizes them.
The biggest polluter in the world is the US Government. But somehow this fact doesn't enter your head, it actually makes you trust the Government even more.
I choose to allow people to engage in freedom. The freedom to buy and sell whatever they want. You seem to think that the government can run everything because it's infallible, just because it was elected.
Let me tell you something that they never tell you in school: The government consists of people and thus have all the weaknesses as any human. Being elected does not make you an Infallible God.
Keynes isn't socialism per se but the belief that with a few mathematical provisions you can effectively prevent general market mistakes and promote greater production and consumption etc. etc. through a few monetary alterations
My problem with keynes is that it completely overlooks the broken window fallacy, for one... that's one pretty obvious criticism that every keynesian simply walks over by saying that government spending can be effectively equivalent to investment.
But building tanks isn't an investment imo, nor is war. Many things, if not all things that government does, can't be considered investment nor consumption, for it doesn't come out of the market, it's a completely reallocation of resources that would otherwise be spent in what can be called investment. Basically, investment is only investment in the eyes of the investor, and the government doesn't have it's own money to invest - it can only take money from others, at which point it's no more investment than a thief buying crack with the money from a stolen stereo. I haven't read a good answer for that yet.
You obviously have no idea of what you are talking about, I knew more about it when I was 10 than you do now! The deal is that the government goes with a surplus when the economy booms and saves up, then when the economy recedes the state starts spending extra. You don't relocate the resources between instances but between time periods. Only a government can do that since investing during a recession is not a good deal for the investor himself and it is sorely needed for the economy to stay relatively stable.
On July 07 2010 07:22 Sputty wrote: I made fun of Ron Paul supporters during the presidential primaries and still find it funny how many 'turned' into various shades of socialists and anarchists. I think a lot of them just aren't really convicted to anything but 'change' even if they don't know what they want in it and some have preconcieved notions of economic freedom and others have notions of equality neither are thought through any significant amount. It may be mean but after a while of slamming into libertarians that won't accept anything and just spout bullshit they don't understand all you can do is laugh at them.
Look at Mr. Common Sense over there, too stupid to understand what liberal education means, the difference between a modern political liberal and the institution of liberal education yet he's willing to state proudly he knows all. All you can do is laugh at these people and that's that. There is no debate, nothing to gain from discussion, stating all the examples of great economic 'freedom' that led to huge failures, like 19th century America in the Gilded Age and the wage slavery, local environmental destruction, disregard for personal liberties, etc. Current Keynesian policies make the economy ridiculously more resilient to collapse than the collapses of the past, that the current economic crisis could've been much worse and was brought on in the first place by deregulation in a single large economy. None of this will ever sink in. That's why I'm mean to libertarians They have no evidence to back up any of their claims, they lack any historical examples to say 'it worked here' all they do is shout about the boogeyman of communism and founding fathers and liberty
Can you prove that socialism works? The last 30 years have marked the end of one socialist empire after another. Maybe if you actually read history you would learn about that.
The financial crisis was caused by your beloved Government. (Fannie May and Freddie Mac) This fact can only be seen by someone who questions the government and scrutinizes them.
The biggest polluter in the world is the US Government. But somehow this fact doesn't enter your head, it actually makes you trust the Government even more.
I choose to allow people to engage in freedom. The freedom to buy and sell whatever they want. You seem to think that the government can run everything because it's infallible, just because it was elected.
Let me tell you something that they never tell you in school: The government consists of people and thus have all the weaknesses as any human. Being elected does not make you an Infallible God.
Keynes isn't socialism per se but the belief that with a few mathematical provisions you can effectively prevent general market mistakes and promote greater production and consumption etc. etc. through a few monetary alterations
My problem with keynes is that it completely overlooks the broken window fallacy, for one... that's one pretty obvious criticism that every keynesian simply walks over by saying that government spending can be effectively equivalent to investment.
But building tanks isn't an investment imo, nor is war. Many things, if not all things that government does, can't be considered investment nor consumption, for it doesn't come out of the market, it's a completely reallocation of resources that would otherwise be spent in what can be called investment. Basically, investment is only investment in the eyes of the investor, and the government doesn't have it's own money to invest - it can only take money from others, at which point it's no more investment than a thief buying crack with the money from a stolen stereo. I haven't read a good answer for that yet.
You obviously have no idea of what you are talking about, I knew more about it when I was 10 than you do now! The deal is that the government goes with a surplus when the economy booms and saves up, then when the economy recedes the state starts spending extra. You don't relocate the resources between instances but between time periods. Only a government can do that and it is sorely needed for the economy to stay relatively stable.
So you mean, the thief saves the money from the stereo to buy crack at a later time? I missed that bit of detail, but the point still stands.
On July 07 2010 07:22 Sputty wrote: I made fun of Ron Paul supporters during the presidential primaries and still find it funny how many 'turned' into various shades of socialists and anarchists. I think a lot of them just aren't really convicted to anything but 'change' even if they don't know what they want in it and some have preconcieved notions of economic freedom and others have notions of equality neither are thought through any significant amount. It may be mean but after a while of slamming into libertarians that won't accept anything and just spout bullshit they don't understand all you can do is laugh at them.
Look at Mr. Common Sense over there, too stupid to understand what liberal education means, the difference between a modern political liberal and the institution of liberal education yet he's willing to state proudly he knows all. All you can do is laugh at these people and that's that. There is no debate, nothing to gain from discussion, stating all the examples of great economic 'freedom' that led to huge failures, like 19th century America in the Gilded Age and the wage slavery, local environmental destruction, disregard for personal liberties, etc. Current Keynesian policies make the economy ridiculously more resilient to collapse than the collapses of the past, that the current economic crisis could've been much worse and was brought on in the first place by deregulation in a single large economy. None of this will ever sink in. That's why I'm mean to libertarians They have no evidence to back up any of their claims, they lack any historical examples to say 'it worked here' all they do is shout about the boogeyman of communism and founding fathers and liberty
Can you prove that socialism works? The last 30 years have marked the end of one socialist empire after another. Maybe if you actually read history you would learn about that.
The financial crisis was caused by your beloved Government. (Fannie May and Freddie Mac) This fact can only be seen by someone who questions the government and scrutinizes them.
The biggest polluter in the world is the US Government. But somehow this fact doesn't enter your head, it actually makes you trust the Government even more.
I choose to allow people to engage in freedom. The freedom to buy and sell whatever they want. You seem to think that the government can run everything because it's infallible, just because it was elected.
Let me tell you something that they never tell you in school: The government consists of people and thus have all the weaknesses as any human. Being elected does not make you an Infallible God.
Keynes isn't socialism per se but the belief that with a few mathematical provisions you can effectively prevent general market mistakes and promote greater production and consumption etc. etc. through a few monetary alterations
My problem with keynes is that it completely overlooks the broken window fallacy, for one... that's one pretty obvious criticism that every keynesian simply walks over by saying that government spending can be effectively equivalent to investment.
But building tanks isn't an investment imo, nor is war. Many things, if not all things that government does, can't be considered investment nor consumption, for it doesn't come out of the market, it's a completely reallocation of resources that would otherwise be spent in what can be called investment. Basically, investment is only investment in the eyes of the investor, and the government doesn't have it's own money to invest - it can only take money from others, at which point it's no more investment than a thief buying crack with the money from a stolen stereo. I haven't read a good answer for that yet.
You obviously have no idea of what you are talking about, I knew more about it when I was 10 than you do now! The deal is that the government goes with a surplus when the economy booms and saves up, then when the economy recedes the state starts spending extra. You don't relocate the resources between instances but between time periods. Only a government can do that since investing during a recession is not a good deal for the investor himself and it is sorely needed for the economy to stay relatively stable.
This is an economic fallacy. Saving money only to spend it later does no more or less for an economy then spending first, then saving during troubled times. The end result is the same.
The boom-bust cycle also only exists because of monetary policy. How many depressions were there in the united states before the creation of the federal reserve in 1913?
On July 07 2010 07:22 Sputty wrote: I made fun of Ron Paul supporters during the presidential primaries and still find it funny how many 'turned' into various shades of socialists and anarchists. I think a lot of them just aren't really convicted to anything but 'change' even if they don't know what they want in it and some have preconcieved notions of economic freedom and others have notions of equality neither are thought through any significant amount. It may be mean but after a while of slamming into libertarians that won't accept anything and just spout bullshit they don't understand all you can do is laugh at them.
Look at Mr. Common Sense over there, too stupid to understand what liberal education means, the difference between a modern political liberal and the institution of liberal education yet he's willing to state proudly he knows all. All you can do is laugh at these people and that's that. There is no debate, nothing to gain from discussion, stating all the examples of great economic 'freedom' that led to huge failures, like 19th century America in the Gilded Age and the wage slavery, local environmental destruction, disregard for personal liberties, etc. Current Keynesian policies make the economy ridiculously more resilient to collapse than the collapses of the past, that the current economic crisis could've been much worse and was brought on in the first place by deregulation in a single large economy. None of this will ever sink in. That's why I'm mean to libertarians They have no evidence to back up any of their claims, they lack any historical examples to say 'it worked here' all they do is shout about the boogeyman of communism and founding fathers and liberty
Can you prove that socialism works? The last 30 years have marked the end of one socialist empire after another. Maybe if you actually read history you would learn about that.
The financial crisis was caused by your beloved Government. (Fannie May and Freddie Mac) This fact can only be seen by someone who questions the government and scrutinizes them.
The biggest polluter in the world is the US Government. But somehow this fact doesn't enter your head, it actually makes you trust the Government even more.
I choose to allow people to engage in freedom. The freedom to buy and sell whatever they want. You seem to think that the government can run everything because it's infallible, just because it was elected.
Let me tell you something that they never tell you in school: The government consists of people and thus have all the weaknesses as any human. Being elected does not make you an Infallible God.
Keynes isn't socialism per se but the belief that with a few mathematical provisions you can effectively prevent general market mistakes and promote greater production and consumption etc. etc. through a few monetary alterations
My problem with keynes is that it completely overlooks the broken window fallacy, for one... that's one pretty obvious criticism that every keynesian simply walks over by saying that government spending can be effectively equivalent to investment.
But building tanks isn't an investment imo, nor is war. Many things, if not all things that government does, can't be considered investment nor consumption, for it doesn't come out of the market, it's a completely reallocation of resources that would otherwise be spent in what can be called investment. Basically, investment is only investment in the eyes of the investor, and the government doesn't have it's own money to invest - it can only take money from others, at which point it's no more investment than a thief buying crack with the money from a stolen stereo. I haven't read a good answer for that yet.
You obviously have no idea of what you are talking about, I knew more about it when I was 10 than you do now! The deal is that the government goes with a surplus when the economy booms and saves up, then when the economy recedes the state starts spending extra. You don't relocate the resources between instances but between time periods. Only a government can do that and it is sorely needed for the economy to stay relatively stable.
So you mean, the thief saves the money from the stereo to buy crack at a later time? I missed that bit of detail, but the point still stands.
The point doesn't still stand, the deal is that without this regulation of the economy it will spiral out of control which causes the extreme crashes we saw in the pre ww2 era. Everyone benefits from this, the reason recessions happens is because during a recession it is usually bad to invest since none else is so it will lose value, but someone/something got to turn the trend. This is where the government goes in, they do everyone a favor and starts investing a lot at a time when none else wants to and thus helps turning the negative trend into a positive one.
It would obviously be best if everyone just started to invest again by themselves, but that doesn't happen as fast as people would want since everyone knows that they would be alone doing it and thus they would lose a lot on it themselves, which is why we need the state to tax some extra during the happy times so that they can help turn the bad times around.
Edit: The modern day crashes we are experiencing are hardly crashes, the net production is hardly phased in the countries effected.
On July 07 2010 08:07 Mindcrime wrote: Unless you are aware of some classless, stateless society that I am not, that word does not mean what you think it means.
In theory Communism is supposed to have no government. In practice Communism has the worst and most tyrannical governments because tyranny is required to promote equality and fairness.
In reality Communism creates 2 classes: The Government and everyone else. This is no different than monarchy: The Lords and the Serfs.
Communism in practice? Go read the constitutions of the USSR, the PRC, Cuba etc. and tell me where any of them claimed to be putting communism into practice.
Those were communism in practice, according to Marx in order to get to communism you have to go through dictatorship, too bad that none made it through so far...
On July 07 2010 07:22 Sputty wrote: I made fun of Ron Paul supporters during the presidential primaries and still find it funny how many 'turned' into various shades of socialists and anarchists. I think a lot of them just aren't really convicted to anything but 'change' even if they don't know what they want in it and some have preconcieved notions of economic freedom and others have notions of equality neither are thought through any significant amount. It may be mean but after a while of slamming into libertarians that won't accept anything and just spout bullshit they don't understand all you can do is laugh at them.
Look at Mr. Common Sense over there, too stupid to understand what liberal education means, the difference between a modern political liberal and the institution of liberal education yet he's willing to state proudly he knows all. All you can do is laugh at these people and that's that. There is no debate, nothing to gain from discussion, stating all the examples of great economic 'freedom' that led to huge failures, like 19th century America in the Gilded Age and the wage slavery, local environmental destruction, disregard for personal liberties, etc. Current Keynesian policies make the economy ridiculously more resilient to collapse than the collapses of the past, that the current economic crisis could've been much worse and was brought on in the first place by deregulation in a single large economy. None of this will ever sink in. That's why I'm mean to libertarians They have no evidence to back up any of their claims, they lack any historical examples to say 'it worked here' all they do is shout about the boogeyman of communism and founding fathers and liberty
Can you prove that socialism works? The last 30 years have marked the end of one socialist empire after another. Maybe if you actually read history you would learn about that.
The financial crisis was caused by your beloved Government. (Fannie May and Freddie Mac) This fact can only be seen by someone who questions the government and scrutinizes them.
The biggest polluter in the world is the US Government. But somehow this fact doesn't enter your head, it actually makes you trust the Government even more.
I choose to allow people to engage in freedom. The freedom to buy and sell whatever they want. You seem to think that the government can run everything because it's infallible, just because it was elected.
Let me tell you something that they never tell you in school: The government consists of people and thus have all the weaknesses as any human. Being elected does not make you an Infallible God.
Keynes isn't socialism per se but the belief that with a few mathematical provisions you can effectively prevent general market mistakes and promote greater production and consumption etc. etc. through a few monetary alterations
My problem with keynes is that it completely overlooks the broken window fallacy, for one... that's one pretty obvious criticism that every keynesian simply walks over by saying that government spending can be effectively equivalent to investment.
But building tanks isn't an investment imo, nor is war. Many things, if not all things that government does, can't be considered investment nor consumption, for it doesn't come out of the market, it's a completely reallocation of resources that would otherwise be spent in what can be called investment. Basically, investment is only investment in the eyes of the investor, and the government doesn't have it's own money to invest - it can only take money from others, at which point it's no more investment than a thief buying crack with the money from a stolen stereo. I haven't read a good answer for that yet.
You obviously have no idea of what you are talking about, I knew more about it when I was 10 than you do now! The deal is that the government goes with a surplus when the economy booms and saves up, then when the economy recedes the state starts spending extra. You don't relocate the resources between instances but between time periods. Only a government can do that and it is sorely needed for the economy to stay relatively stable.
So you mean, the thief saves the money from the stereo to buy crack at a later time? I missed that bit of detail, but the point still stands.
The point doesn't still stand, the deal is that without this regulation of the economy it will spiral out of control which causes the extreme crashes we saw in the pre ww2 era. Everyone benefits from this, the reason recessions happens is because during a recession it is usually bad to invest since none else is so it will lose value, but someone/something got to turn the trend. This is where the government goes in, they do everyone a favor and starts investing a lot at a time when none else wants to and thus helps turning the negative trend into a positive one.
It would obviously be best if everyone just started to invest again by themselves, but that doesn't happen since everyone knows that they would be alone doing it and thus they would lose a lot on it themselves, which is why we need the state to tax some extra during the happy times so that they can help turn the bad times around.
On July 07 2010 08:07 Mindcrime wrote: Unless you are aware of some classless, stateless society that I am not, that word does not mean what you think it means.
In theory Communism is supposed to have no government. In practice Communism has the worst and most tyrannical governments because tyranny is required to promote equality and fairness.
In reality Communism creates 2 classes: The Government and everyone else. This is no different than monarchy: The Lords and the Serfs.
Communism in practice? Go read the constitutions of the USSR, the PRC, Cuba etc. and tell me where any of them claimed to be putting communism into practice.
Those were communism in practice, according to Marx in order to get to communism you have to go through dictatorship, too bad that none made it through so far...
Hmm, a guy once wrote about the coming great depression and got a nobel prize for it. Even Bernake recognized this guys viewpoint. Von Mises. Here is an article about it
The answer is the government does not create anything, it simply redistributes or wastes. The only regulation should be to regulate how much the government can interfere with the economy.
On July 07 2010 07:22 Sputty wrote: I made fun of Ron Paul supporters during the presidential primaries and still find it funny how many 'turned' into various shades of socialists and anarchists. I think a lot of them just aren't really convicted to anything but 'change' even if they don't know what they want in it and some have preconcieved notions of economic freedom and others have notions of equality neither are thought through any significant amount. It may be mean but after a while of slamming into libertarians that won't accept anything and just spout bullshit they don't understand all you can do is laugh at them.
Look at Mr. Common Sense over there, too stupid to understand what liberal education means, the difference between a modern political liberal and the institution of liberal education yet he's willing to state proudly he knows all. All you can do is laugh at these people and that's that. There is no debate, nothing to gain from discussion, stating all the examples of great economic 'freedom' that led to huge failures, like 19th century America in the Gilded Age and the wage slavery, local environmental destruction, disregard for personal liberties, etc. Current Keynesian policies make the economy ridiculously more resilient to collapse than the collapses of the past, that the current economic crisis could've been much worse and was brought on in the first place by deregulation in a single large economy. None of this will ever sink in. That's why I'm mean to libertarians They have no evidence to back up any of their claims, they lack any historical examples to say 'it worked here' all they do is shout about the boogeyman of communism and founding fathers and liberty
Can you prove that socialism works? The last 30 years have marked the end of one socialist empire after another. Maybe if you actually read history you would learn about that.
The financial crisis was caused by your beloved Government. (Fannie May and Freddie Mac) This fact can only be seen by someone who questions the government and scrutinizes them.
The biggest polluter in the world is the US Government. But somehow this fact doesn't enter your head, it actually makes you trust the Government even more.
I choose to allow people to engage in freedom. The freedom to buy and sell whatever they want. You seem to think that the government can run everything because it's infallible, just because it was elected.
Let me tell you something that they never tell you in school: The government consists of people and thus have all the weaknesses as any human. Being elected does not make you an Infallible God.
Keynes isn't socialism per se but the belief that with a few mathematical provisions you can effectively prevent general market mistakes and promote greater production and consumption etc. etc. through a few monetary alterations
My problem with keynes is that it completely overlooks the broken window fallacy, for one... that's one pretty obvious criticism that every keynesian simply walks over by saying that government spending can be effectively equivalent to investment.
But building tanks isn't an investment imo, nor is war. Many things, if not all things that government does, can't be considered investment nor consumption, for it doesn't come out of the market, it's a completely reallocation of resources that would otherwise be spent in what can be called investment. Basically, investment is only investment in the eyes of the investor, and the government doesn't have it's own money to invest - it can only take money from others, at which point it's no more investment than a thief buying crack with the money from a stolen stereo. I haven't read a good answer for that yet.
You obviously have no idea of what you are talking about, I knew more about it when I was 10 than you do now! The deal is that the government goes with a surplus when the economy booms and saves up, then when the economy recedes the state starts spending extra. You don't relocate the resources between instances but between time periods. Only a government can do that and it is sorely needed for the economy to stay relatively stable.
So you mean, the thief saves the money from the stereo to buy crack at a later time? I missed that bit of detail, but the point still stands.
The point doesn't still stand, the deal is that without this regulation of the economy it will spiral out of control which causes the extreme crashes we saw in the pre ww2 era. Everyone benefits from this, the reason recessions happens is because during a recession it is usually bad to invest since none else is so it will lose value, but someone/something got to turn the trend. This is where the government goes in, they do everyone a favor and starts investing a lot at a time when none else wants to and thus helps turning the negative trend into a positive one.
It would obviously be best if everyone just started to invest again by themselves, but that doesn't happen since everyone knows that they would be alone doing it and thus they would lose a lot on it themselves, which is why we need the state to tax some extra during the happy times so that they can help turn the bad times around.
It doesn't matter to keynesians what the government spends the money on at all, does it? The government could be building giant screws ala soviet union and it would come up as an aggregate investment in the GDP calculation. If it were to hire thousands of window-breakers and break everyone's window so there's an economic incentive to repair them, even the merrier! That's a great investment, is it not?
I'm saying that what you consider to be investment, can't be investment, because the money has been misappropriated from the start. Be it credit, printed money, or just plain old taxation, it's stolen property, and whatever is done with it aftewards is sub-par to what would have been done had the misallocation not happened in the first place.
Edit: plus the theory is just morally preposterous in an individual sense. I need to be forced into contributing to a fund that's going to invest into the market in a time when I would rather not? Who in their sane minds would do such a thing? It's basically just treating entrepreneurs and everyone in general like irrational animals.
On July 07 2010 08:06 darmousseh wrote: Deregulation isn't powerful enough to cause a financial meltdown. In fact, there are no natural ways for a meltdown to occur. The only things that can cause a financial crises is financial policies. Things like interest rates, money supply, and government spending.
1. Interest rates are fixed. This means that the free market either over-invests (if interest rates are too low) or under-invests (if they are too high). In either case, it is worse than an unfixed rate.
2. Money Supply and debt. The way the government fights inflation is by borrowing the money instead of just printing it. They make a promise to pay off this debt and inflation is staved off. However, there is a short term problem that occurs when the debt to gdp ratio is really high which is over-consumption because of short term inflation. When new money hits the market, prices go up momentarily until the market deflates again. Right now we are in the middle of that inflationary period.
3. Ties into point #2.
One last thing to note is that it was previously thought that inflation=high employment and deflation=low employment which was a theory incorrectly asserted by Keynesian economists. Unemployment has to do with supply and demand as it is just a commodity like everything else. The problem is that right now, companies are not willing to invest any resources into development because of the fear of inflation. Also since demand dropped for goods and services, normally a wage drop would occur in order to balance out employment, however, another price fix called minimum wage exists to ensure that those least valued in the economy don't have a job. (I also wrote about how minimum wage is discriminatory as well in a blog post).
Do you want people to make $3 an hour and have no place to live? Wages have been cut, tremendously already. Nothing is cheaper and it has nothing to do with minimum wage. People who work at autocompanies and made $20 an hour 20 years ago now make $12 to 13. Cars arent any cheaper! You could argue its companies paying for healthcare and attrition but even toyota isnt significantly cheaper.
Car manufacturers got a ton of regulations and inspections to go through, and some are subsidized too Hardly a pure market phenomenon that cars are still expensive
On July 07 2010 07:22 Sputty wrote: I made fun of Ron Paul supporters during the presidential primaries and still find it funny how many 'turned' into various shades of socialists and anarchists. I think a lot of them just aren't really convicted to anything but 'change' even if they don't know what they want in it and some have preconcieved notions of economic freedom and others have notions of equality neither are thought through any significant amount. It may be mean but after a while of slamming into libertarians that won't accept anything and just spout bullshit they don't understand all you can do is laugh at them.
Look at Mr. Common Sense over there, too stupid to understand what liberal education means, the difference between a modern political liberal and the institution of liberal education yet he's willing to state proudly he knows all. All you can do is laugh at these people and that's that. There is no debate, nothing to gain from discussion, stating all the examples of great economic 'freedom' that led to huge failures, like 19th century America in the Gilded Age and the wage slavery, local environmental destruction, disregard for personal liberties, etc. Current Keynesian policies make the economy ridiculously more resilient to collapse than the collapses of the past, that the current economic crisis could've been much worse and was brought on in the first place by deregulation in a single large economy. None of this will ever sink in. That's why I'm mean to libertarians They have no evidence to back up any of their claims, they lack any historical examples to say 'it worked here' all they do is shout about the boogeyman of communism and founding fathers and liberty
Can you prove that socialism works? The last 30 years have marked the end of one socialist empire after another. Maybe if you actually read history you would learn about that.
The financial crisis was caused by your beloved Government. (Fannie May and Freddie Mac) This fact can only be seen by someone who questions the government and scrutinizes them.
The biggest polluter in the world is the US Government. But somehow this fact doesn't enter your head, it actually makes you trust the Government even more.
I choose to allow people to engage in freedom. The freedom to buy and sell whatever they want. You seem to think that the government can run everything because it's infallible, just because it was elected.
Let me tell you something that they never tell you in school: The government consists of people and thus have all the weaknesses as any human. Being elected does not make you an Infallible God.
Keynes isn't socialism per se but the belief that with a few mathematical provisions you can effectively prevent general market mistakes and promote greater production and consumption etc. etc. through a few monetary alterations
My problem with keynes is that it completely overlooks the broken window fallacy, for one... that's one pretty obvious criticism that every keynesian simply walks over by saying that government spending can be effectively equivalent to investment.
But building tanks isn't an investment imo, nor is war. Many things, if not all things that government does, can't be considered investment nor consumption, for it doesn't come out of the market, it's a completely reallocation of resources that would otherwise be spent in what can be called investment. Basically, investment is only investment in the eyes of the investor, and the government doesn't have it's own money to invest - it can only take money from others, at which point it's no more investment than a thief buying crack with the money from a stolen stereo. I haven't read a good answer for that yet.
You obviously have no idea of what you are talking about, I knew more about it when I was 10 than you do now! The deal is that the government goes with a surplus when the economy booms and saves up, then when the economy recedes the state starts spending extra. You don't relocate the resources between instances but between time periods. Only a government can do that and it is sorely needed for the economy to stay relatively stable.
So you mean, the thief saves the money from the stereo to buy crack at a later time? I missed that bit of detail, but the point still stands.
The point doesn't still stand, the deal is that without this regulation of the economy it will spiral out of control which causes the extreme crashes we saw in the pre ww2 era. Everyone benefits from this, the reason recessions happens is because during a recession it is usually bad to invest since none else is so it will lose value, but someone/something got to turn the trend. This is where the government goes in, they do everyone a favor and starts investing a lot at a time when none else wants to and thus helps turning the negative trend into a positive one.
It would obviously be best if everyone just started to invest again by themselves, but that doesn't happen since everyone knows that they would be alone doing it and thus they would lose a lot on it themselves, which is why we need the state to tax some extra during the happy times so that they can help turn the bad times around.
It doesn't matter to keynesians what the government spends the money on at all, does it? The government could be building giant screws ala soviet union and it would come up as an aggregate investment in the GDP calculation. If it were to hire thousands of window-breakers and break everyone's window so there's an economic incentive to repair them, even the merrier! That's a great investment, is it not?
I'm saying that what you consider to be investment, can't be investment, because the money has been misappropriated from the start. Be it credit, printed money, or just plain old taxation, it's stolen property, and whatever is done with it aftewards is sub-par to what would have been done had the misallocation not happened in the first place.
Edit: plus the theory is just morally preposterous in an individual sense. I need to be forced into contributing to a fund that's going to invest into the market in a time when I would rather not? Who in their sane minds would do such a thing? It's basically just treating entrepreneurs and everyone in general like irrational animals.
You don't understand at all... Do you know why recessions exists? Because someone gets afraid, he withdraws his investments, shares drops in value due to supply-demand, others see a trend that the shares are dropping so they too withdraws. This leads to a downward spiral where people withdraws more and more and causes a crash.
How do you stop that downwards spiral? By investing! Why aren't people investing? Since they are afraid of losing their money! But someone got to invest at some point or the whole economy dies, after a while people will naturally start to invest again when the prices gets low enough, but then it is too late. However by intervening the government can make the whole process a lot swifter and thus make the depression a lot less severe.
It is impossible to get this effect without involving the government, and everyone benefits on this overall. Yes the government isn't as efficient in general as the private sector, but the private sector can't handle a national economic crisis. You can't expect anyone in the private sector to bank during good times and invest during bad times it would be suicide, which is why the public sector needs to force everyone to give a share during the good times and then invest it during the bad times since everyone benefits from it in the end.
On July 07 2010 08:58 Yurebis wrote: Car manufacturers got a ton of regulations and inspections to go through, and some are subsidized too Hardly a pure market phenomenon that cars are still expensive
Do you not want them to have regulations and inspections?
On July 07 2010 08:58 Yurebis wrote: Car manufacturers got a ton of regulations and inspections to go through, and some are subsidized too Hardly a pure market phenomenon that cars are still expensive
Do you not want them to have regulations and inspections?
On July 07 2010 07:22 Sputty wrote: I made fun of Ron Paul supporters during the presidential primaries and still find it funny how many 'turned' into various shades of socialists and anarchists. I think a lot of them just aren't really convicted to anything but 'change' even if they don't know what they want in it and some have preconcieved notions of economic freedom and others have notions of equality neither are thought through any significant amount. It may be mean but after a while of slamming into libertarians that won't accept anything and just spout bullshit they don't understand all you can do is laugh at them.
Look at Mr. Common Sense over there, too stupid to understand what liberal education means, the difference between a modern political liberal and the institution of liberal education yet he's willing to state proudly he knows all. All you can do is laugh at these people and that's that. There is no debate, nothing to gain from discussion, stating all the examples of great economic 'freedom' that led to huge failures, like 19th century America in the Gilded Age and the wage slavery, local environmental destruction, disregard for personal liberties, etc. Current Keynesian policies make the economy ridiculously more resilient to collapse than the collapses of the past, that the current economic crisis could've been much worse and was brought on in the first place by deregulation in a single large economy. None of this will ever sink in. That's why I'm mean to libertarians They have no evidence to back up any of their claims, they lack any historical examples to say 'it worked here' all they do is shout about the boogeyman of communism and founding fathers and liberty
Can you prove that socialism works? The last 30 years have marked the end of one socialist empire after another. Maybe if you actually read history you would learn about that.
The financial crisis was caused by your beloved Government. (Fannie May and Freddie Mac) This fact can only be seen by someone who questions the government and scrutinizes them.
The biggest polluter in the world is the US Government. But somehow this fact doesn't enter your head, it actually makes you trust the Government even more.
I choose to allow people to engage in freedom. The freedom to buy and sell whatever they want. You seem to think that the government can run everything because it's infallible, just because it was elected.
Let me tell you something that they never tell you in school: The government consists of people and thus have all the weaknesses as any human. Being elected does not make you an Infallible God.
Keynes isn't socialism per se but the belief that with a few mathematical provisions you can effectively prevent general market mistakes and promote greater production and consumption etc. etc. through a few monetary alterations
My problem with keynes is that it completely overlooks the broken window fallacy, for one... that's one pretty obvious criticism that every keynesian simply walks over by saying that government spending can be effectively equivalent to investment.
But building tanks isn't an investment imo, nor is war. Many things, if not all things that government does, can't be considered investment nor consumption, for it doesn't come out of the market, it's a completely reallocation of resources that would otherwise be spent in what can be called investment. Basically, investment is only investment in the eyes of the investor, and the government doesn't have it's own money to invest - it can only take money from others, at which point it's no more investment than a thief buying crack with the money from a stolen stereo. I haven't read a good answer for that yet.
You obviously have no idea of what you are talking about, I knew more about it when I was 10 than you do now! The deal is that the government goes with a surplus when the economy booms and saves up, then when the economy recedes the state starts spending extra. You don't relocate the resources between instances but between time periods. Only a government can do that and it is sorely needed for the economy to stay relatively stable.
So you mean, the thief saves the money from the stereo to buy crack at a later time? I missed that bit of detail, but the point still stands.
The point doesn't still stand, the deal is that without this regulation of the economy it will spiral out of control which causes the extreme crashes we saw in the pre ww2 era. Everyone benefits from this, the reason recessions happens is because during a recession it is usually bad to invest since none else is so it will lose value, but someone/something got to turn the trend. This is where the government goes in, they do everyone a favor and starts investing a lot at a time when none else wants to and thus helps turning the negative trend into a positive one.
It would obviously be best if everyone just started to invest again by themselves, but that doesn't happen since everyone knows that they would be alone doing it and thus they would lose a lot on it themselves, which is why we need the state to tax some extra during the happy times so that they can help turn the bad times around.
It doesn't matter to keynesians what the government spends the money on at all, does it? The government could be building giant screws ala soviet union and it would come up as an aggregate investment in the GDP calculation. If it were to hire thousands of window-breakers and break everyone's window so there's an economic incentive to repair them, even the merrier! That's a great investment, is it not?
I'm saying that what you consider to be investment, can't be investment, because the money has been misappropriated from the start. Be it credit, printed money, or just plain old taxation, it's stolen property, and whatever is done with it aftewards is sub-par to what would have been done had the misallocation not happened in the first place.
Edit: plus the theory is just morally preposterous in an individual sense. I need to be forced into contributing to a fund that's going to invest into the market in a time when I would rather not? Who in their sane minds would do such a thing? It's basically just treating entrepreneurs and everyone in general like irrational animals.
You don't understand at all... Do you know why recessions exists? Because someone gets afraid, he withdraws his investments, shares drops in value due to supply-demand, others see a trend that the shares are dropping so they too withdraws. This leads to a downward spiral where people withdraws more and more and causes a crash.
How do you stop that downwards spiral? By investing! Why aren't people investing? Since they are afraid of losing their money! But someone got to invest at some point or the whole economy dies, after a while people will naturally start to invest again when the prices gets low enough, but then it is too late. However by intervening the government can make the whole process a lot swifter and thus make the depression a lot less severe.
It is impossible to get this effect without involving the government, and everyone benefits on this overall. Yes the government isn't as efficient in general as the private sector, but the private sector can't handle a national economic crisis. You can't expect anyone in the private sector to bank during good times and invest during bad times it would be suicide, which is why the public sector needs to force everyone to give a share during the good times and then invest it during the bad times since everyone benefits from it in the end.
I don't know for a fact why any recession happens, the market is a big place and there are millions of variables to account for. I find that the keynesian theory of the business cycle is an oversimplification for many reasons, the main one being the broken window fallacy that you aren't addressing. You already explained the rest, no need to repeat.
Also, if investors are fearful of investing in a recession, why do you feel entitled in forcing them to invest? It seems to me that the fearful and irrational one is not the investor, but the keynesians and governments who are fearful of letting people do what they want to do. You're the ones pushing and messing around so, I think the state is the one being irrational at any rate. Quite the projection, calling people dumb and susceptible to animal spirits when they're the ones stealing and deficit spending like they're responsible LOL.
On July 07 2010 08:58 Yurebis wrote: Car manufacturers got a ton of regulations and inspections to go through, and some are subsidized too Hardly a pure market phenomenon that cars are still expensive
Do you not want them to have regulations and inspections?
I want cheap cars that work for my ends. When the government mandates a certain means to be followed, not only does it wrongly assumes a certain end to everyone, but it also limits me on my prefered means. Even in the case that I did want a safer car, the specifics on what type of safety are hardly reconcilable between a bureaucrat and the manufacturer to meet this consumer's wants.
Which is why, to reach any voluntary end's, it is always preferable to do it without coercion or mandate.
On July 07 2010 07:22 Sputty wrote: I made fun of Ron Paul supporters during the presidential primaries and still find it funny how many 'turned' into various shades of socialists and anarchists. I think a lot of them just aren't really convicted to anything but 'change' even if they don't know what they want in it and some have preconcieved notions of economic freedom and others have notions of equality neither are thought through any significant amount. It may be mean but after a while of slamming into libertarians that won't accept anything and just spout bullshit they don't understand all you can do is laugh at them.
Look at Mr. Common Sense over there, too stupid to understand what liberal education means, the difference between a modern political liberal and the institution of liberal education yet he's willing to state proudly he knows all. All you can do is laugh at these people and that's that. There is no debate, nothing to gain from discussion, stating all the examples of great economic 'freedom' that led to huge failures, like 19th century America in the Gilded Age and the wage slavery, local environmental destruction, disregard for personal liberties, etc. Current Keynesian policies make the economy ridiculously more resilient to collapse than the collapses of the past, that the current economic crisis could've been much worse and was brought on in the first place by deregulation in a single large economy. None of this will ever sink in. That's why I'm mean to libertarians They have no evidence to back up any of their claims, they lack any historical examples to say 'it worked here' all they do is shout about the boogeyman of communism and founding fathers and liberty
Can you prove that socialism works? The last 30 years have marked the end of one socialist empire after another. Maybe if you actually read history you would learn about that.
The financial crisis was caused by your beloved Government. (Fannie May and Freddie Mac) This fact can only be seen by someone who questions the government and scrutinizes them.
The biggest polluter in the world is the US Government. But somehow this fact doesn't enter your head, it actually makes you trust the Government even more.
I choose to allow people to engage in freedom. The freedom to buy and sell whatever they want. You seem to think that the government can run everything because it's infallible, just because it was elected.
Let me tell you something that they never tell you in school: The government consists of people and thus have all the weaknesses as any human. Being elected does not make you an Infallible God.
Keynes isn't socialism per se but the belief that with a few mathematical provisions you can effectively prevent general market mistakes and promote greater production and consumption etc. etc. through a few monetary alterations
My problem with keynes is that it completely overlooks the broken window fallacy, for one... that's one pretty obvious criticism that every keynesian simply walks over by saying that government spending can be effectively equivalent to investment.
But building tanks isn't an investment imo, nor is war. Many things, if not all things that government does, can't be considered investment nor consumption, for it doesn't come out of the market, it's a completely reallocation of resources that would otherwise be spent in what can be called investment. Basically, investment is only investment in the eyes of the investor, and the government doesn't have it's own money to invest - it can only take money from others, at which point it's no more investment than a thief buying crack with the money from a stolen stereo. I haven't read a good answer for that yet.
You obviously have no idea of what you are talking about, I knew more about it when I was 10 than you do now! The deal is that the government goes with a surplus when the economy booms and saves up, then when the economy recedes the state starts spending extra. You don't relocate the resources between instances but between time periods. Only a government can do that and it is sorely needed for the economy to stay relatively stable.
So you mean, the thief saves the money from the stereo to buy crack at a later time? I missed that bit of detail, but the point still stands.
The point doesn't still stand, the deal is that without this regulation of the economy it will spiral out of control which causes the extreme crashes we saw in the pre ww2 era. Everyone benefits from this, the reason recessions happens is because during a recession it is usually bad to invest since none else is so it will lose value, but someone/something got to turn the trend. This is where the government goes in, they do everyone a favor and starts investing a lot at a time when none else wants to and thus helps turning the negative trend into a positive one.
It would obviously be best if everyone just started to invest again by themselves, but that doesn't happen since everyone knows that they would be alone doing it and thus they would lose a lot on it themselves, which is why we need the state to tax some extra during the happy times so that they can help turn the bad times around.
It doesn't matter to keynesians what the government spends the money on at all, does it? The government could be building giant screws ala soviet union and it would come up as an aggregate investment in the GDP calculation. If it were to hire thousands of window-breakers and break everyone's window so there's an economic incentive to repair them, even the merrier! That's a great investment, is it not?
I'm saying that what you consider to be investment, can't be investment, because the money has been misappropriated from the start. Be it credit, printed money, or just plain old taxation, it's stolen property, and whatever is done with it aftewards is sub-par to what would have been done had the misallocation not happened in the first place.
Edit: plus the theory is just morally preposterous in an individual sense. I need to be forced into contributing to a fund that's going to invest into the market in a time when I would rather not? Who in their sane minds would do such a thing? It's basically just treating entrepreneurs and everyone in general like irrational animals.
You don't understand at all... Do you know why recessions exists? Because someone gets afraid, he withdraws his investments, shares drops in value due to supply-demand, others see a trend that the shares are dropping so they too withdraws. This leads to a downward spiral where people withdraws more and more and causes a crash.
How do you stop that downwards spiral? By investing! Why aren't people investing? Since they are afraid of losing their money! But someone got to invest at some point or the whole economy dies, after a while people will naturally start to invest again when the prices gets low enough, but then it is too late. However by intervening the government can make the whole process a lot swifter and thus make the depression a lot less severe.
It is impossible to get this effect without involving the government, and everyone benefits on this overall. Yes the government isn't as efficient in general as the private sector, but the private sector can't handle a national economic crisis. You can't expect anyone in the private sector to bank during good times and invest during bad times it would be suicide, which is why the public sector needs to force everyone to give a share during the good times and then invest it during the bad times since everyone benefits from it in the end.
I don't know for a fact why any recession happens, the market is a big place and there are millions of variables to account for. I find that the keynesian theory of the business cycle is an oversimplification for many reasons, the main one being the broken window fallacy that you aren't addressing. You already explained the rest, no need to repeat.
Also, if investers are fearful of investing in a recession, why do you feel entitled in forcing them to invest? It seems to me that the fearful and irrational one is not the investor, but the keynesians and governments who are fearful of letting people do what they want to do. You're the ones pushing and messing around so, I think the state is the one being irrational at any rate. Quite the projection, calling people dumb and susceptible to animal spirits when they're the ones stealing and deficit spending like they're responsible LOL.
Deficit spending is not Keynesianism, at least if you take it over time since it advocates saving up between the recessions. Why do they deficit spend? I think it is because in a democracy you need the support of the people and the people want you to overspend so they do it to stay in power, no economic theory wants you to deficit spend.
On July 07 2010 07:22 Sputty wrote: I made fun of Ron Paul supporters during the presidential primaries and still find it funny how many 'turned' into various shades of socialists and anarchists. I think a lot of them just aren't really convicted to anything but 'change' even if they don't know what they want in it and some have preconcieved notions of economic freedom and others have notions of equality neither are thought through any significant amount. It may be mean but after a while of slamming into libertarians that won't accept anything and just spout bullshit they don't understand all you can do is laugh at them.
Look at Mr. Common Sense over there, too stupid to understand what liberal education means, the difference between a modern political liberal and the institution of liberal education yet he's willing to state proudly he knows all. All you can do is laugh at these people and that's that. There is no debate, nothing to gain from discussion, stating all the examples of great economic 'freedom' that led to huge failures, like 19th century America in the Gilded Age and the wage slavery, local environmental destruction, disregard for personal liberties, etc. Current Keynesian policies make the economy ridiculously more resilient to collapse than the collapses of the past, that the current economic crisis could've been much worse and was brought on in the first place by deregulation in a single large economy. None of this will ever sink in. That's why I'm mean to libertarians They have no evidence to back up any of their claims, they lack any historical examples to say 'it worked here' all they do is shout about the boogeyman of communism and founding fathers and liberty
Can you prove that socialism works? The last 30 years have marked the end of one socialist empire after another. Maybe if you actually read history you would learn about that.
The financial crisis was caused by your beloved Government. (Fannie May and Freddie Mac) This fact can only be seen by someone who questions the government and scrutinizes them.
The biggest polluter in the world is the US Government. But somehow this fact doesn't enter your head, it actually makes you trust the Government even more.
I choose to allow people to engage in freedom. The freedom to buy and sell whatever they want. You seem to think that the government can run everything because it's infallible, just because it was elected.
Let me tell you something that they never tell you in school: The government consists of people and thus have all the weaknesses as any human. Being elected does not make you an Infallible God.
Keynes isn't socialism per se but the belief that with a few mathematical provisions you can effectively prevent general market mistakes and promote greater production and consumption etc. etc. through a few monetary alterations
My problem with keynes is that it completely overlooks the broken window fallacy, for one... that's one pretty obvious criticism that every keynesian simply walks over by saying that government spending can be effectively equivalent to investment.
But building tanks isn't an investment imo, nor is war. Many things, if not all things that government does, can't be considered investment nor consumption, for it doesn't come out of the market, it's a completely reallocation of resources that would otherwise be spent in what can be called investment. Basically, investment is only investment in the eyes of the investor, and the government doesn't have it's own money to invest - it can only take money from others, at which point it's no more investment than a thief buying crack with the money from a stolen stereo. I haven't read a good answer for that yet.
You obviously have no idea of what you are talking about, I knew more about it when I was 10 than you do now! The deal is that the government goes with a surplus when the economy booms and saves up, then when the economy recedes the state starts spending extra. You don't relocate the resources between instances but between time periods. Only a government can do that and it is sorely needed for the economy to stay relatively stable.
So you mean, the thief saves the money from the stereo to buy crack at a later time? I missed that bit of detail, but the point still stands.
The point doesn't still stand, the deal is that without this regulation of the economy it will spiral out of control which causes the extreme crashes we saw in the pre ww2 era. Everyone benefits from this, the reason recessions happens is because during a recession it is usually bad to invest since none else is so it will lose value, but someone/something got to turn the trend. This is where the government goes in, they do everyone a favor and starts investing a lot at a time when none else wants to and thus helps turning the negative trend into a positive one.
It would obviously be best if everyone just started to invest again by themselves, but that doesn't happen since everyone knows that they would be alone doing it and thus they would lose a lot on it themselves, which is why we need the state to tax some extra during the happy times so that they can help turn the bad times around.
It doesn't matter to keynesians what the government spends the money on at all, does it? The government could be building giant screws ala soviet union and it would come up as an aggregate investment in the GDP calculation. If it were to hire thousands of window-breakers and break everyone's window so there's an economic incentive to repair them, even the merrier! That's a great investment, is it not?
I'm saying that what you consider to be investment, can't be investment, because the money has been misappropriated from the start. Be it credit, printed money, or just plain old taxation, it's stolen property, and whatever is done with it aftewards is sub-par to what would have been done had the misallocation not happened in the first place.
Edit: plus the theory is just morally preposterous in an individual sense. I need to be forced into contributing to a fund that's going to invest into the market in a time when I would rather not? Who in their sane minds would do such a thing? It's basically just treating entrepreneurs and everyone in general like irrational animals.
You don't understand at all... Do you know why recessions exists? Because someone gets afraid, he withdraws his investments, shares drops in value due to supply-demand, others see a trend that the shares are dropping so they too withdraws. This leads to a downward spiral where people withdraws more and more and causes a crash.
How do you stop that downwards spiral? By investing! Why aren't people investing? Since they are afraid of losing their money! But someone got to invest at some point or the whole economy dies, after a while people will naturally start to invest again when the prices gets low enough, but then it is too late. However by intervening the government can make the whole process a lot swifter and thus make the depression a lot less severe.
It is impossible to get this effect without involving the government, and everyone benefits on this overall. Yes the government isn't as efficient in general as the private sector, but the private sector can't handle a national economic crisis. You can't expect anyone in the private sector to bank during good times and invest during bad times it would be suicide, which is why the public sector needs to force everyone to give a share during the good times and then invest it during the bad times since everyone benefits from it in the end.
I don't know for a fact why any recession happens, the market is a big place and there are millions of variables to account for. I find that the keynesian theory of the business cycle is an oversimplification for many reasons, the main one being the broken window fallacy that you aren't addressing. You already explained the rest, no need to repeat.
Also, if investers are fearful of investing in a recession, why do you feel entitled in forcing them to invest? It seems to me that the fearful and irrational one is not the investor, but the keynesians and governments who are fearful of letting people do what they want to do. You're the ones pushing and messing around so, I think the state is the one being irrational at any rate. Quite the projection, calling people dumb and susceptible to animal spirits when they're the ones stealing and deficit spending like they're responsible LOL.
Deficit spending is not Keynesianism. Why do they deficit spend? I think it is because in a democracy you need the support of the people and the people want you to overspend so they do it to stay in power, no economic theory wants you to deficit spend.
On July 07 2010 03:16 Fwmeh wrote: It would seem to me that this thread has evolved into (yet another) economics thread, which is somehow sad. Economics, just like most social sciences, is severely lacking in its predicting capabilities, and most large-scale tastings would likely be very unpleasant for those involved. Frankly, the usefulness of most models is simply too hard to evaluate.
Therefore, one should be careful when claiming a society need to be a certain way for economic reasons. In most cases, the data supporting such a claim is insufficient, at least from a natural scientific point of view.
Austrian Economics agrees with you. The future can't be evaluated because the ends and means of every individual changes constantly
With that in mind, I think that man (or its representative, the government) should aim to control "the market" as far as is feasible, while still allowing it to function. What it Europe might be called a mixed economy. I do personally not hold any sympathy for the idea that "the market" is what is determine mans deserts.
A centralized, controlled economy simply DOES NOT WORK. The soviet union taught us that. The more control the government tries to implement, the worse the economy does.
[...] if a market is "too free", it doesn't get as powerful and is much more instable in many situations.
like?
Cite an example of a free market that worked properly.
Free Market is an utopia, just like anarchy which you like so much. It makes the claim that everyone will do everything correctly. Unfortunately, shit happens if you just let people do their things.
But then again you don't have the slightest clue about how people would behave in a free market and you make some more assumptions... It's pretty weird that you don't even show any doubt whatsoever, given that you make SO MANY assumptions.
I don't believe in no government, and the free market system isn't perfect, but it's done a helluva lot better than communism. People aren't perfect, so any system will not be perfect. But it's an historical fact that governments that try to control their economies cause WAY more harm than good and the more power a government has, the more corrupt it becomes.
You can't just say "it's an historical fact" and then say something that's not always true.
Why does everyone cling so tightly to their ideals? I feel that it undermines reality. communists defending communism that isn't communism. capitalists defending broken capitalist models. members of constitutional republics defending democracy. Keynesian Economics, like it matters.
"No Economic theory wants you to deficit spend" well then why is it happening? Why do the scholars defend their broken model while everything collapses? It's like doing an experiment on your hypothesis and finding contrary results and then proceeding forwards as if the results were the opposite.
To me this is the issue we should all be uniting on. Why stand behind -anything- that works in theory but will never be applied properly. This includes almost any state or form of power. The second it isn't working as intended, take it back.(or atleast get your paw outta the jar) My 2cents and yeeeee flame away.
edit: didn't realize i deleted the line that said "understand that when i say broken, i don't mean in theory but in application" as such the post below this one is clearly not talking to me. :D
Keynesian theory isn't "broken". Even Keynes knew that deficit spending worked in the short-run and had consequences in the long-run (which didn't matter to him since "we're all dead").
People really shouldn't criticize things they don't understand, not that Keynes should be immune to criticism (far from it)
On July 07 2010 09:36 Motiva wrote: Why does everyone cling so tightly to their ideals? I feel that it undermines reality. communists defending communism that isn't communism. capitalists defending broken capitalist models. members of constitutional republics defending democracy. Keynesian Economics, like it matters.
"No Economic theory wants you to deficit spend" well then why is it happening? Why do the scholars defend their broken model while everything collapses? It's like doing an experiment on your hypothesis and finding contrary results and then proceeding forwards as if the results were the opposite.
To me this is the issue we should all be uniting on. Why stand behind -anything- that works in theory but will never be applied properly. This includes almost any state or form of power. The second it isn't working as intended, take it back.(or atleast get your paw outta the jar) My 2cents and yeeeee flame away.
You do have a point.
I'd say it's praxeologically preferable to cling onto a belief than none at all for those with the ends of "fixing" things.
Those who don't cling onto any belief would have nothing to say and therefore exclude themselves from debate.
It's sad that an argument has to take place period, for I'd rather prefer if people minded their own businesses, and not try to claim control over other's properties saying it's "necessary". Especially those who don't even realize they're infringing self-ownership in a political debate. Very sad.
On July 07 2010 09:36 Motiva wrote: Why does everyone cling so tightly to their ideals? I feel that it undermines reality. communists defending communism that isn't communism. capitalists defending broken capitalist models. members of constitutional republics defending democracy. Keynesian Economics, like it matters.
"No Economic theory wants you to deficit spend" well then why is it happening? Why do the scholars defend their broken model while everything collapses? It's like doing an experiment on your hypothesis and finding contrary results and then proceeding forwards as if the results were the opposite.
To me this is the issue we should all be uniting on. Why stand behind -anything- that works in theory but will never be applied properly. This includes almost any state or form of power. The second it isn't working as intended, take it back.(or atleast get your paw outta the jar) My 2cents and yeeeee flame away.
You do have a point.
I'd say it's praxeologically preferable to cling onto a belief than none at all for those with the ends of "fixing" things.
Those who don't cling onto any belief would have nothing to say and therefore exclude themselves from debate.
It's sad that an argument has to take place period, for I'd rather prefer if people minded their own businesses, and not try to claim control over other's properties saying it's "necessary". Especially those who don't even realize they're infringing self-ownership in a political debate. Very sad.
I wouldn't agree that if you don't cling to any belief that you have nothing to say. Keyword being cling. What I mean is that it is very well possible to understand several contradictory ideals and have extremely wise input into any debate. However, real issue i have here would be that people aren't willing to listen to people who don't agree with them. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.
I'm becoming very interested in praxeology lately, however, I feel that the mention above is a fairly narrow application, Couldn't it be argued that the opposite could be true as well. That is would be most "self maximizing" to understand as many angles as possible and provide the most relevant advice possible, As opposed to just recycling rhetoric. This is a matter of social phenomena though. Though I have little education on the finer workings of praxeology, so curious what you think. Cause this shit is frustrating. Bunch of headless pundits chasing headless chickens.
On July 07 2010 09:36 Motiva wrote: Why does everyone cling so tightly to their ideals? I feel that it undermines reality. communists defending communism that isn't communism. capitalists defending broken capitalist models. members of constitutional republics defending democracy. Keynesian Economics, like it matters.
"No Economic theory wants you to deficit spend" well then why is it happening? Why do the scholars defend their broken model while everything collapses? It's like doing an experiment on your hypothesis and finding contrary results and then proceeding forwards as if the results were the opposite.
To me this is the issue we should all be uniting on. Why stand behind -anything- that works in theory but will never be applied properly. This includes almost any state or form of power. The second it isn't working as intended, take it back.(or atleast get your paw outta the jar) My 2cents and yeeeee flame away.
You do have a point.
I'd say it's praxeologically preferable to cling onto a belief than none at all for those with the ends of "fixing" things.
Those who don't cling onto any belief would have nothing to say and therefore exclude themselves from debate.
It's sad that an argument has to take place period, for I'd rather prefer if people minded their own businesses, and not try to claim control over other's properties saying it's "necessary". Especially those who don't even realize they're infringing self-ownership in a political debate. Very sad.
I wouldn't agree that if you don't cling to any belief that you have nothing to say. Keyword being cling. What I mean is that it is very well possible to understand several contradictory ideals and have extremely wise input into any debate. However, real issue i have here would be that people aren't willing to listen to people who don't agree with them. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Ah touché. But even then, your goal could be seen to criticize everything, at least by others. You at least have to have something you agree with, in order to support a certain course of action.
On July 07 2010 09:36 Motiva wrote: Why does everyone cling so tightly to their ideals? I feel that it undermines reality. communists defending communism that isn't communism. capitalists defending broken capitalist models. members of constitutional republics defending democracy. Keynesian Economics, like it matters.
"No Economic theory wants you to deficit spend" well then why is it happening? Why do the scholars defend their broken model while everything collapses? It's like doing an experiment on your hypothesis and finding contrary results and then proceeding forwards as if the results were the opposite.
To me this is the issue we should all be uniting on. Why stand behind -anything- that works in theory but will never be applied properly. This includes almost any state or form of power. The second it isn't working as intended, take it back.(or atleast get your paw outta the jar) My 2cents and yeeeee flame away.
You do have a point.
I'd say it's praxeologically preferable to cling onto a belief than none at all for those with the ends of "fixing" things.
Those who don't cling onto any belief would have nothing to say and therefore exclude themselves from debate.
It's sad that an argument has to take place period, for I'd rather prefer if people minded their own businesses, and not try to claim control over other's properties saying it's "necessary". Especially those who don't even realize they're infringing self-ownership in a political debate. Very sad.
I'm becoming very interested in praxeology lately, however, I feel that the mention above is a fairly narrow application, Couldn't it be argued that the opposite could be true as well. That is would be most "self maximizing" to understand as many angles as possible and provide the most relevant advice possible, As opposed to just recycling rhetoric. This is a matter of social phenomena though. Though I have little education on the finer workings of praxeology, so curious what you think. Cause this shit is frustrating. Bunch of headless pundits chasing headless chickens.
It is important to know as many angles as possible insofar to adopt one and follow that one, and for the matters of discourse so you can criticize them.
On July 05 2010 19:30 endy wrote: Average IQ of youtube comments posters is barely above my grandmother's APM.
Edit : Sorry for making such a short reply, you probably expected a more developed answer, but I think there is nothing else to say. I prefer to have politics debates with my colleagues / friends than with some random fucktards on youtube.
But it's a great idea to start the debate here since I TL community is smart and good at arguing.
I lol'd at that one, everyone should go look at the G20 thread and see how much people got shit on for even suggesting the police weren't acting out of line in SOME cases. Even with reasonable explanations.
Yea I agree completely, and posted in that thread, and wish it took off more
I only bring this up because it is such a fine line between alienating yourself among your peers, and truly understanding enough of the multitude of angles to then proceed to debate among your peers to aim to execute the most efficient means. Obviously the big issues here are bias and apathy because preaching a different sermon to the choir can be quite difficult.
People tend to prefer any short term pleasure over any long term medicine. Furthmore the media and this clinging are really stagnating any true debate. I suppose in short, you could just say that I'm arguing that a combination of false-self-maximizing and stagnant feedback mechanisms to the public are causing the failure in the application of these models.
Furthermore I think this is the most important aspect and should be at the forefront simply because of the mixed nature of the US Economy, and even further, the mixed nature of the global economy.
On July 07 2010 09:41 jalstar wrote: People really shouldn't criticize things they don't understand
How is this a valid argument?
There's an all-too-common misconception that Keynesian deficit spending is supposed to be some magic cure-all, when really it's more equivalent to taking morphine to stop the pain. Actually, a better analogy would be chemotherapy.
On July 07 2010 09:41 jalstar wrote: People really shouldn't criticize things they don't understand
How is this a valid argument?
There's an all-too-common misconception that Keynesian deficit spending is supposed to be some magic cure-all, when really it's more equivalent to taking morphine to stop the pain. Actually, a better analogy would be chemotherapy.
I was addressing your comment that People shouldn't criticize things they don't understand, I think that is marginally if not strictly false. But I do agree with what you say about Keynesian Economics.
On July 07 2010 09:41 jalstar wrote: People really shouldn't criticize things they don't understand
How is this a valid argument?
There's an all-too-common misconception that Keynesian deficit spending is supposed to be some magic cure-all, when really it's more equivalent to taking morphine to stop the pain. Actually, a better analogy would be chemotherapy.
Too bad the patient is worried that the cancer would be coming back so he continues taking the chemotherapy just to be safe!
On July 07 2010 10:09 Motiva wrote: Yea I agree completely, and posted in that thread, and wish it took off more
I only bring this up because it is such a fine line between alienating yourself among your peers, and truly understanding enough of the multitude of angles to then proceed to debate among your peers to aim to execute the most efficient means. Obviously the big issues here are bias and apathy because preaching a different sermon to the choir can be quite difficult.
People tend to prefer any short term pleasure over any long term medicine. Furthmore the media and this clinging are really stagnating any true debate. I suppose in short, you could just say that I'm arguing that a combination of false-self-maximizing and stagnant feedback mechanisms to the public are causing the failure in the application of these models.
Furthermore I think this is the most important aspect and should be at the forefront simply because of the mixed nature of the US Economy, and even further, the mixed nature of the global economy.
Oh ok I missed your posts there.
I think I've said this before but the main problem of a political argument is the vague determination of property. When you have two parties: 1-claiming control over a common resource 2- differing in opinion on the use of the resource, that debate won't ever stop until either party concedes #1 to the other one. #2 doesn't even matter but that's what people argue about 99% of the time. "We should do this, we should do that, blablabla".
When you mix in government property and how the 'democratic' system is set up (everyone has an equal say, now try to settle some issues with your 300 million peers, glhf LOL), it just makes it much worse.
When you are arguing about schools of economic thought in threads like these you should remember to suit theories to fit facts, not twist facts to suit theories.
If a government is implementing one policy and the economy is not improving, instead of jumping to conclusions that the policy doesn't work, you should ask instead: why might the economy not be responsive to this policy? Who are the intermediaries for this policy? What assumptions did we make when we thought this policy might be helpful?
The internet isn't liberal, it's pretty balanced. By nature it is, because traditional media is no longer objective. Not saying the internet is, but it's the ultimate outlet of free speech.
On July 07 2010 03:16 Fwmeh wrote: It would seem to me that this thread has evolved into (yet another) economics thread, which is somehow sad. Economics, just like most social sciences, is severely lacking in its predicting capabilities, and most large-scale tastings would likely be very unpleasant for those involved. Frankly, the usefulness of most models is simply too hard to evaluate.
Therefore, one should be careful when claiming a society need to be a certain way for economic reasons. In most cases, the data supporting such a claim is insufficient, at least from a natural scientific point of view.
Austrian Economics agrees with you. The future can't be evaluated because the ends and means of every individual changes constantly
With that in mind, I think that man (or its representative, the government) should aim to control "the market" as far as is feasible, while still allowing it to function. What it Europe might be called a mixed economy. I do personally not hold any sympathy for the idea that "the market" is what is determine mans deserts.
A centralized, controlled economy simply DOES NOT WORK. The soviet union taught us that. The more control the government tries to implement, the worse the economy does.
[...] if a market is "too free", it doesn't get as powerful and is much more instable in many situations.
like?
Cite an example of a free market that worked properly.
Free Market is an utopia, just like anarchy which you like so much. It makes the claim that everyone will do everything correctly. Unfortunately, shit happens if you just let people do their things.
But then again you don't have the slightest clue about how people would behave in a free market and you make some more assumptions... It's pretty weird that you don't even show any doubt whatsoever, given that you make SO MANY assumptions.
I don't believe in no government, and the free market system isn't perfect, but it's done a helluva lot better than communism. People aren't perfect, so any system will not be perfect. But it's an historical fact that governments that try to control their economies cause WAY more harm than good and the more power a government has, the more corrupt it becomes.
Unless you are aware of some classless, stateless society that I am not, that word does not mean what you think it means.
OK, I should say "the Soviet Union's, China's, North Korea's, and Cuba's attempt at a centralized government controlled economy which they claim is communism" have all FAILED
Political opinions on the internet are a collection of extreme idealistic young people. Most young people are in college, colleges are by default liberal and the political leanings of colleges are towards socialism and left wing ideas.
Therefore, the internet is liberal.
There's also the crazy right wingers and jesus freaks but that's like 15% minority.
On July 07 2010 09:41 jalstar wrote: People really shouldn't criticize things they don't understand
How is this a valid argument?
"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt"
Besides it's not even an argument it's just his opinion on how an ignorant person should behave when not understanding a discussion.
Would you get involved in a conversation about quantum mechanics with two physicists given that you don't know shit about it? You'd come off as a douchebag.
Back on the OP's main question, I don't believe the internet has a liberal bias. A bias implies an agenda, and all the internet has convinced me to do is play video games and look at hilarious pictures of kitties with captions.
We should make distinctions between economic and social schools of thought. Fiscal liberals and fiscal conservatives seem to be fairly well-balanced on the internet, it's just that social liberals outnumber social conservatives (scared off by the porn??)
The question, "Do you think the internet has a liberal bias?" is so imprecise a question as to be totally useless. What exactly do you mean by "the internet"? Seriously, I'm having flashbacks to middle school, and it's time for current events. Ostensibly the point of current events was to introduce us to research and to understand reputable sources. But every fucking week some kid would walk up there and say, "Uh, this article is about underfunded schools, and I got it from the internet." Oh, you got it from the internet, eh? How nice for you.
The internet as we experience it is an abstraction, a system that moves information so that we can look at it from anywhere. It's not defined by its users. The internet can't be biased, unless of course you're referring to the material infrastructure that allows for the rapid and far-reaching transmission of digital information. And I mean I guess it could be possible that the fundamental physical structure of the world wide web somehow promotes liberalism through subtle, nefarious, and totally non-sentient activity. Is that what you mean?
Maybe you're talking about the content we may find online. But hey, anywhere? Maybe the content found on those vampire slash havens is actually advocating gay marriage, and the free-ballers forum is pushing a radical leftist testicle agenda. Even if we turn our sights to the most-trafficked content that is explicitly political, from nytimes to huffpo to freep, evaluating their bias tells us nothing about the political inclination of "the internet" because there is no such thing.
I'll cut you some slack OP and cut right to what you're obviously asking: do the majority of individual internet users identify themselves as liberals? This is not an interesting question. It's like asking, how many people are sitting at this here dinner table? You just have to count them. That may be a bit tough to do, but it's not really up for debate.
The proportion of liberal internet users to conservative internet users is totally meaningless and irrelevant, mostly because the huge majority of people merely come to identify with a political movement, whether through brainwashing or more abstract sociological influences or out of fear or a sense of superiority or whatever, and their "political beliefs" are derived thereafter. There is no logical debate. There is no reason. There is stupidity and stubbornness and the aesthetic, and we'll keep doing whatever stupid shit we're doing, dragging our feet, humanity's still-brief timeline perforated occasionally by the emergence of some wildly improbable figure clever enough to manipulate the drooling masses into doing what's best for them.
On July 07 2010 03:16 Fwmeh wrote: It would seem to me that this thread has evolved into (yet another) economics thread, which is somehow sad. Economics, just like most social sciences, is severely lacking in its predicting capabilities, and most large-scale tastings would likely be very unpleasant for those involved. Frankly, the usefulness of most models is simply too hard to evaluate.
Therefore, one should be careful when claiming a society need to be a certain way for economic reasons. In most cases, the data supporting such a claim is insufficient, at least from a natural scientific point of view.
Austrian Economics agrees with you. The future can't be evaluated because the ends and means of every individual changes constantly
With that in mind, I think that man (or its representative, the government) should aim to control "the market" as far as is feasible, while still allowing it to function. What it Europe might be called a mixed economy. I do personally not hold any sympathy for the idea that "the market" is what is determine mans deserts.
What's that system for? The goal? And if you define "the market" as the group of individuals freely acting and trading voluntarily, I think what you say is a bit contradictory. Voluntarily acting men do not determine man's deserts?
I believe you and I have vastly different view of what would constitute voluntary action.
Today, more than at any time previously in the human history, people are dependent on one another. A vast vast vast majority of the people in the western world would, if left alone, starve to death. Surely even you realize that. Now, this give the people who provide you with food power over you, given that you would act to gain food so as to preserve your life. I presume you value your life higher than I do, so as to regard it as something worth preserving.
Now really, what your acquire is of course not food in itself, but money to buy it. That means that if left without money, people would starve to death. Or maybe rummage through garbage bins in the streets to provide sustenance, but I honestly think that particular resource is limited, and would soon be depleted.
You claimed in your praxeology-thread that "One cannot coerce or force others with money alone." This is of course blatantly false, either through naiveté or dishonesty. Since money is in most cases necessary to survive, it means that people will go to disturbing lengths to acquire it.
In your ideal world, that would be what determine a mans deserts. How much money he has. Voluntary action would have precious little to do with it, since no matter what you would wish to do in a given situation, you would be limited by what you are actually able to do. And you would find that given enough money, your options would increase dramatically.
Say what you will about democracy, but it is the system that is best a preventing the worst possible scenario. And it seems that that is better than any other system. That means that I believe that a mans deserts is what the majority decides it to be. Same thing as his rights. Whereas in your case, the practical result would be that a mans rights is determined by his money, i.e. his power, or might. Might makes right.
On July 07 2010 03:16 Fwmeh wrote: It would seem to me that this thread has evolved into (yet another) economics thread, which is somehow sad. Economics, just like most social sciences, is severely lacking in its predicting capabilities, and most large-scale tastings would likely be very unpleasant for those involved. Frankly, the usefulness of most models is simply too hard to evaluate.
Therefore, one should be careful when claiming a society need to be a certain way for economic reasons. In most cases, the data supporting such a claim is insufficient, at least from a natural scientific point of view.
Austrian Economics agrees with you. The future can't be evaluated because the ends and means of every individual changes constantly
With that in mind, I think that man (or its representative, the government) should aim to control "the market" as far as is feasible, while still allowing it to function. What it Europe might be called a mixed economy. I do personally not hold any sympathy for the idea that "the market" is what is determine mans deserts.
What's that system for? The goal? And if you define "the market" as the group of individuals freely acting and trading voluntarily, I think what you say is a bit contradictory. Voluntarily acting men do not determine man's deserts?
I believe you and I have vastly different view of what would constitute voluntary action.
Today, more than at any time previously in the human history, people are dependent on one another. A vast vast vast majority of the people in the western world would, if left alone, starve to death. Surely even you realize that. Now, this give the people who provide you with food power over you, given that you would act to gain food so as to preserve your life. I presume you value your life higher than I do, so as to regard it as something worth preserving.
The people living in big cities today can be said to be "dependent" on farmers elsewhere to bring them food. But there are two things that you've missed.
First, it is a rational choice by the part of the city dwellers to rely in such a system. They evaluated that the chances of all farmers refusing to sell food at the same time would be very low, and therefore it is safe to work at the city without starving. Even in the offchance that the farmers were to all suddenly stop producing, there's still some food in the fridge and in the groceries left, which could give him some time to figure out what to do, so it wouldn't be instant death the next few days. So you can see that it's not a 100% dependence, and even if it was, I don't really see any problem with that.
Second, the farmers by the same token also "depend" on the city dwellers to provide them with certain services they can not acquire in a low density population. It's funny that you chose to pick out one side of the equation and not the other. The farmers would not be exchanging their food for money if food is all they needed. They have food, if they trade it, obviously they want to buy other things. What could those things be, well, technology, drugs, guns, plastic junk, cellphones, entertainment, machines, services... whatever else you can think of.
A trade no doubt is expected to make both people better off. And the converse could be true, it's expected that they'd be worse off if no trade is to be made. But I wouldn't call a voluntary trade "dependency". You can only be as dependent on a trade you expect to happen as much as you want... if you don't like to be dependent on the farmers well, start growing a bit of your own food, there's some people doing that now.
On July 07 2010 19:08 Fwmeh wrote: Now really, what your acquire is of course not food in itself, but money to buy it. That means that if left without money, people would starve to death. Or maybe rummage through garbage bins in the streets to provide sustenance, but I honestly think that particular resource is limited, and would soon be depleted.
Two things that I find wrong again, money itself is just a means of trade. That people pay more attention to earning an income doesn't deny the fact that money itself would have no value without goods and services being offered to be traded by it. Same deal with gold; you could have all the gold or money in the world, if no one ever trades other goods with you for that gold, you're a poor man
Without money, all that means is that the economy returns to a barter type of market, where people would exchange their goods and services for more desirable goods and services. Those goods that present the most desirability and liquidity (and other particular qualities) would spontaneously rise to the top as "the new money". But of course, people could choose whatever means they want, as they can today, law aside.
On July 07 2010 19:08 Fwmeh wrote: You claimed in your praxeology-thread that "One cannot coerce or force others with money alone." This is of course blatantly false, either through naiveté or dishonesty. Since money is in most cases necessary to survive, it means that people will go to disturbing lengths to acquire it.
Can money command you to kill another man? Against your will? Can money make you do anything without you taking it and doing what was requested by the evil rich guy who wants you to do nasty things?
No, money is an inanimate object. It's silly to think money is making people kill, rape, steal. You confound the means with the ends. It's what people want to do with that money that makes money valuable. That's one of praxeology's first lessons; a good's value is determined not by what it is but what you think can be done with it.
On July 07 2010 19:08 Fwmeh wrote: In your ideal world, that would be what determine a mans deserts. How much money he has. Voluntary action would have precious little to do with it, since no matter what you would wish to do in a given situation, you would be limited by what you are actually able to do. And you would find that given enough money, your options would increase dramatically.
Okay, sure, money does allow you to trade it for a lot of things, no doubt.
On July 07 2010 19:08 Fwmeh wrote: Say what you will about democracy, but it is the system that is best a preventing the worst possible scenario. And it seems that that is better than any other system. That means that I believe that a mans deserts is what the majority decides it to be. Same thing as his rights. Whereas in your case, the practical result would be that a mans rights is determined by his money, i.e. his power, or might. Might makes right.
Basically, a private court in a free market would obviously have no monopoly on jurisdiction, and would only be employed as a third party if it was hired for it and agreed upon by both parties. They would be in direct competition with other courts that may or may not use different law codes. If person A and B enter in a conflict, and person A wants to go to court X, while B wants court Y, then court X and Y would most likely provide a solution by calling another third party, court W. That's just being an example, of course, of how a non-monopolistic court system settles disputes.
But what would happen is person A was mega-rich and payed court X to be extremely uncompromising against court Y? Well, that court X, by more often than not being worried about winning cases in a way that may be seen as unfair will be called less by other non-rich-evil people, and will lose credibility, therefore profits. You see, a successful market court does not make it's earnings on wins or losses of cases, but by how credible it is seen and consequently how many clients it hears. A court becomes popular by its conflict-resolution efficiency to both parties, not just the preferred or richest one.
Bribes can happen. But they can happen in the present monopolistic too. The question is, for what money is worth, in which system is it cheaper and more effective to bribe a judge? The one with multiple competing courts, or the one with the one court where every case has to go to? The one where judges have to constantly improve to earn a living, or the one where judges are cycled around and paid at a fixed rate?
I'd say might-makes-right should be more prominent in a one-size-fits-all democratic solution.
On July 07 2010 06:39 Sleight wrote: Also, for the conservatives accusing liberals of this and liberals accusing conservatives of that... You are all idiots. We all are. Accept this. Move on with your lives. And I am sure everyone is wrong on plenty of things, just by virtue of us all being mostly selfish and pretty focused on what would fit in nicely with ourselves.
You've been brainwashed to hate Conservatism. In reality you are as Conservative as can be. The founding fathers of this country based our constitution on a Libertarian Philosophy. Anyone who tells you otherwise is full of crap.
Learning some history is your friend. Christ. You know how relevant the constitution was for our first 100 years right?
Surprised this thread is still surviving. It's philosophy versus fact.
Plus everything can be a bias from every stand-point and in every way for anybody, so I wouldnt be so quick to proclaim something a bias because its not close to your personal opinions. But maybe you are totally sure that you have 100% the right opinion about everything.
Plus people who comments on youtube is mostly idiots.
Noticing a general bias on the internet doesn't have anything to do with your own standpoint. Anybody can notice a political tendency or bias, no matter what their own political opinion or standpoint is.
Depending how you define bias?
Nothing is surely objective, so there are biases everywhere. And internet is a big place without an agenda, so to notice a general bias there you have to look really closely. Every opinion is represented on net.
Edit: My definition of bias is only seeing things from one side, or giving one side an unfair advantage-
It's like you can't read... GENERAL BIAS. Is different than the bias of a specific group, person, or entity.
On July 08 2010 02:28 hifriend wrote: Come to think of it, isn't the internet largely atheist as well? How would you explain this?
A factor is that you won't get discriminated against for being an atheist on the Internet, and if you do, you don't care. In real life it makes mom cry and the christian schoolgirls call you a demon...
I'm just guessing though, because where I live, there's very few religious people under 40 year old.
Why does it have to be the gunverment, and why does it have to take money without asking, and not do it voluntarily like any other entrepreneur?
People wouldn't give a sufficient amount of money to build an actual infrastructure. Trying that would certainly be disastrous. If you think otherwise you make huge assumptions about human nature.
And tax-cutting the rich would allow him to cut prices, allowing the poor to buy more junk. So what? A tax is a tax, taking money from the market and using it for some arbitrary end that may or may not turn to be somewhat useful to some of the taxpayers (always with added overhead of course).
Tax-cutting the rich doesn't affect the production costs and such. Lowering their taxes wouldn't directly affect their prices in a significant way.
What evidence do you have that a country without a fair amount of taxation can take off at all, it has never even come close to happen. In the US, you can get an OK job fairly easily, get a comfortable apartment or even a house. You get education easily. All of this comes from the taxes people paid before. If people were going "Free for all" like what you're advocating, it would be in the same state as all of the other countries which have tried to do that. Poor and underdeveloped. The countries who have tried flat taxes have done really badly if you care.
That which is has no bearing on how it should be. If we were all monarchies still, it would make aristocracy no more deplorable to the ones who can envision a world without kings, ahead of their time.
Provided you were raised in the US, so little of what you have would have been so easy to reach if there wasn't a government taking money from people in order to make it work. If you don't want to pay taxes, go away. The only reason why you want to stay in the US is because it's a good place to live. WHY is it a good place to live? Because it was built to be a good place to live. It was built with taxes. Taxes which used to be a lot higher, btw.
Assuming that by US you mean the US government, what workframe is that? You mean private property and laws wouldn't exist without the government? Well that's debatable, and I doubt you know anything about anarcho-capitalism, but I'm not going to bother trying to explain how it could work, too tired ATM, sorry.
People who try to argue for any type of anarchy expect people to be better than they are. If you were to explain anarcho-capitalism, you would make a lot of assumptions about how to build an utopia. If it could work it would be wonderful but it can't.
Maybe, but is it because of the government here? I think the standards of living in the US are this way despite what the government does, not thanks to it.
Read the name. It's the United-States. That's a body. You're suggesting the standards of living spawned there out of thin air for the couple hundreds years you've been there? That's ridiculous. I'll state the obvious here. Your country's success is largely based on its governing body which made it quickly rise to be the most powerful country in the world. Your money represents a country. Not a bunch of people, not a landmass, but a body which is governed by a president which has taxed its people for a long, long time. It started well before the US was powerful, too.
Infrastructure which could have been built voluntarily and more efficiently had people knew+tried.
People don't know. And people obviously want others to pay for it. Everybody knows that. If a person makes $50,000 a year and some project requires 20 billions to be completed, $5000 is nothing, even $50,000 is nothing. It's foolish to expect people would chip in NEARLY enough. But I guess anarchists can distort human nature so it fits.
People wouldn't give a sufficient amount of money to build an actual infrastructure. Trying that would certainly be disastrous. If you think otherwise you make huge assumptions about human nature.
The only tax that we should have is income tax at less than 7% of your income. that means the government makes up 7% of our GDP. Before FDR the government took less than 5% of our GDP. Tax-cutting the rich doesn't affect the production costs and such. Lowering their taxes wouldn't directly affect their prices in a significant way.
Yes it does. Business owners don't want to lose money so they find a way to keep profits however they can. If a business owner makes more than he did last year and wants to keep growing he will higher more people and create a bigger economy; If he loses another 3% of his gross income then he will cut corners and people to make that money back.
What evidence do you have that a country without a fair amount of taxation can take off at all, it has never even come close to happen. In the US, you can get an OK job fairly easily, get a comfortable apartment or even a house. You get education easily. All of this comes from the taxes people paid before. If people were going "Free for all" like what you're advocating, it would be in the same state as all of the other countries which have tried to do that. Poor and underdeveloped. The countries who have tried flat taxes have done really badly if you care.
America became the biggest economy in the late 1800's and didn't have any tax (except income) until the 1900's. This country has proven you wrong, just because someone or some party pushes "Progressive" ideas doesn't mean they are correct ideas (and bigger government is progressive).
Provided you were raised in the US, so little of what you have would have been so easy to reach if there wasn't a government taking money from people in order to make it work. If you don't want to pay taxes, go away. The only reason why you want to stay in the US is because it's a good place to live. WHY is it a good place to live? Because it was built to be a good place to live. It was built with taxes. Taxes which used to be a lot higher, btw.
On a sliding scale America is one of the lowest for taxes and government control, Other countries (GB) are becoming less and less powerful while Capitalism truly succeeds. America is a good place to live because (example) if your corner market has too high of prices everyone stops going there and he goes out of business; after that Joe's market comes in w/ cheaper prices. Taxes have never been higher than they were before Bush Jr and will continue to rise now that we have extra government spending. How else are we supposed to pay for the government 4Trillion budget (that they are going over >.>)
People who try to argue for any type of anarchy expect people to be better than they are. If you were to explain anarcho-capitalism, you would make a lot of assumptions about how to build an utopia. If it could work it would be wonderful but it can't.
While I'm not asking for any sort of anarchy (hence the word) I am asking and will always ask for a limited government instead of a government based on European ideals.
Read the name. It's the United-States. That's a body. You're suggesting the standards of living spawned there out of thin air for the couple hundreds years you've been there? That's ridiculous. I'll state the obvious here. Your country's success is largely based on its governing body which made it quickly rise to be the most powerful country in the world. Your money represents a country. Not a bunch of people, not a landmass, but a body which is governed by a president which has taxed its people for a long, long time. It started well before the US was powerful, too.
Our country is the most powerful in the world because we have a lot of resources and the government doesn't get into the way of capitalism. Why would we have someone mediate and take 20% of a deal between John and Bob. The U.S government is here to enforce federal laws, Census, and run the judicial system. The powers of congress have gone far beyond what they were before and what they should be. Because we don't have a monarchy to represent us it really is just a bunch of people and therefor will last longer than said monarchy. The U.S was powerful before we were our own country (Defeating the greatest country on earth at the time, even after the english/french wars).
People don't know. And people obviously want others to pay for it. Everybody knows that. If a person makes $50,000 a year and some project requires 20 billions to be completed, $5000 is nothing, even $50,000 is nothing. It's foolish to expect people would chip in NEARLY enough. But I guess anarchists can distort human nature so it fits.
First off, we have taxes that should be in place. It is a citizens duty to provide some taxes. 5k out of 50k would be reasonable. Secondly the government shouldn't be building something that it doesn't have a budget for, It seems a lot of people just look at taxes as a black hole that can go for anything when really needs to be divided between things like national defense, schools and programs already out there THEN new projects built. Third point is that I can guarantee that said 20 billion dollar project would be greatly reduced if it was done by a private contractor and bidded on by companies. Since their seems to be an endless pit of tax money the words "Get it done" come to mind when thinking of the governments spending habits. [/QUOTE]
On July 07 2010 09:41 jalstar wrote: People really shouldn't criticize things they don't understand
How is this a valid argument?
"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt"
Besides it's not even an argument it's just his opinion on how an ignorant person should behave when not understanding a discussion.
Would you get involved in a conversation about quantum mechanics with two physicists given that you don't know shit about it? You'd come off as a douchebag.
That's kind of my point. If all your staking is a possible change in perception of yourself, and yet you stand to gain a little to a vast amount of information. It's clearly +EV
Obviously to really get gritty with it, we'd have to start theorizing situations calculating the ends and means, I suppose I just disagree completely with that common quote.
Better to speak out and be perceived a fool than to be a fool at the end of the day.
On July 08 2010 04:38 ixi.genocide wrote: The countries who have tried flat taxes have done really badly if you care.
Not entirely true. Some countries, such as Estonia, have done very well with flat income taxes. I'm a Policy Studies student and I recently wrote a comparative jurisdiction review on the differing tax structures of Estonia, Japan and Canada. I'm pretty psyched whenever I actually find an application for my research, so here's an excerpt for anyone interested. xD
"Estonia's innovative taxation system has been the subject of much critique over the past decade, the majority of it positive. There are, however, distinct disadvantages in their model of medium-low flat income tax, equal corporate tax and medium-high consumption tax. There are also some advantages which are completely inapplicable to the Canadian situation.
The most notable of these advantages which only holds in the Estonian context is the symbolic and practical attractiveness that flat income and corporate taxes have imparted to foreign investors. A former soviet satellite state, Estonia has been independent only since 1991. After such an extended absorption in the communist empire, Estonia faced the same challenge that much of eastern Europe did at the time; transition into a market economy from the rubble of cultural and institutional systems deeply entrenched in the tradition of a planned economy. Somehow Estonia has managed to rise above most of its neighbours, enjoying a streak of economic prosperity which has gained it the nickname “The Baltic Tiger”. It is likely that the flat, low taxes imposed by Estonia in 1994 have been a contributing factor in signaling a fundamental regime change and encouraging foreign investment (Keen et al 2006, 39). In both a symbolic and literal sense, government is stepping out of the way and allowing the market to function with less obtrusive intervention and reallocation. The appeal and effectiveness of a flat tax in a nation with an already well-established market economy is thought to be greatly decreased, limiting the utility Canada could obtain by flattening its tax structures.
One function of Estonia's tax policies that do present a clear advantage for Canada is their effect on discouraging tax evasion. Tax evasion has been steadily declining in Estonia, and while improvements to their auditing system is clearly a factor (Kriz et al 2007), the flatness of the income tax and the equal rate of corporate tax also play a role here. The steeper income tax becomes, the greater incentive citizens have to risk prosecution by illegally circumventing it. This results in total income tax revenue eventually slowing to a halt and beginning to decrease as rates rise beyond a certain threshold, an effect commonly known as the Laffer curve. It is worth noting, however, that in all eastern European states but Russia, the effects of the Laffer curve were not powerful enough to increase or maintain total personal income tax revenue when the flat tax was set towards the low end of a previously progressive tax (Kriz et al 2007, 3). On another positive note, Estonia's system decreases not only the motivation for tax evasion, but also the available means. When high-tier income taxes exceed corporate taxes, manipulative bookkeeping often takes place to reallocate funds into the less expensive tax category (Azacis et al 2008, 38). For example, corporate employees reclassify themselves as self-employed consultants and enjoy lower taxes on their incomes while performing the exact same job they have in the past.
The combination of low income tax and high consumption tax in Estonia has also been evaluated by many as conductive to general macroeconomic health. Karsten Staehr (2008) reports that Estonia's low income taxes have a relevant effect on participation in the economy (although they do not entice those already working to work more hours). He has found that lowering the basic tax exemption by 10% would reduce employment by slightly less than 0.5%. Increasing the tax rate by 1% would reduce employment by 0.35%. The VAT is necessary, then, to make up the revenues lost by keeping income tax low to decrease unemployment, a vital goal during recessions. Luckily, Zeiger et al (2005) have calculated that reducing the VAT on food in Estonia is not a necessary procedure. Expanding the tax exempt threshold by linking it to the minimum wage would be a more effective measure which would likely further boost employment and provide tax relief more targeted to those who truly need it. It's also been found that the VAT often has little immediate effect on consumer goods pricing. This was exemplified when the VAT rate imposed on books in Estonia was decreased from 18% to 5% without considerable price change. It seems clear, then, that the most important taxes to keep low during times of economic slowdown are income taxes (Zeiger et al 2005, 8).
Even if one is to buy into a low, flat income tax as being ideal from the above examples, there exists a fundamental question which must be addressed: is a flat tax equitable? The rationale behind a progressive tax is that, while the rich pay a larger proportion and a much larger amount of money to the government, because they are already so wealthy the amount of marginal utility derived from each dollar is phenomenally lower than that derived by those living around the poverty line. Our social responsibilities require us to provide the poor with some means of support, and lower tax rates coupled with social programs financed by the wealthy is the primary mechanism of redistribution in the modern welfare state. Keen et al (2006) argues that flat tax systems are not necessarily regressive; they may even be more progressive in certain cases. This is primarily due to the increased tax compliance of the wealthy and the increases in base tax exemptions often seen at lower levels. Fuest et al (2007) agree with this principle, but are not optimistic about the general prospects of an Estonian type flat tax applied to other western European nations. While a high flat tax with a high exemption allowance could be very progressive and equitable, “the scenario with the lowest parameter values for basic allowance and tax rate is the only alternative that leads to positive labour supply and significantly positive welfare effects” (14). A tradeoff would have to be made between an equitable system and an efficient one which promotes employment."
On July 08 2010 04:38 ixi.genocide wrote: The countries who have tried flat taxes have done really badly if you care.
Not entirely true. Some countries, such as Estonia, have done very well with flat income taxes.
Estonia doing "very well" is an overstatement. Also flat tax obviously can do ok when there's not an huge disparity between the people's income. Pretty sure nobody in Estonia goes around with A billion. Let alone 50.
When I think of economic powerhouses, I think Estonia.
...
...
Such a good troll, man. You've even 'researched' it and everything. Economic theory is mostly that: "theory." Practice never follows theory. We should just do our best to take care of our family, friends, and neighbors, whatever that means. Now if someone has a compelling reason why we should not do the above, I'd love to hear how you'd have done back in the African grasslands during our time climbing the evolutionary tree.
If your argument is that you don't care, well, enjoy Christmas, Scrooge.
Oh wow. Memories. We did a class vote last year and I was the only one who voted Conservative. Thank God it was a blind vote and the teacher didn't point me out. O:
On July 08 2010 04:38 ixi.genocide wrote: The countries who have tried flat taxes have done really badly if you care.
Not entirely true. Some countries, such as Estonia, have done very well with flat income taxes.
Estonia doing "very well" is an overstatement. Also flat tax obviously can do ok when there's not an huge disparity between the people's income. Pretty sure nobody in Estonia goes around with A billion. Let alone 50.
And I say it can "do ok", that's quite relative.
On July 08 2010 08:35 Sleight wrote: When I think of economic powerhouses, I think Estonia.
...
...
Such a good troll, man. You've even 'researched' it and everything.
Uh... did either of you actually read any of that? Furthermore, do you actually know anything at all about Estonia? I provide in-depth analysis and you provide unfounded opinions. At least make issue with something specific so we have some grounds for debate.
Replying to the original post, I do believe that the internet has a liberal bias. Compare leading left wing political blogs to right wing political blogs. The left wing blogs, like Daily Kos, allow for open discussion and use a rating system to monitor behaviour. The right wing blogs, like Red State and Free Republic, use the ban stick or they don't have a comment section. The left wing blogs foster argument and dissenting ideas. And the internet allows for quick access to numerical evidence that helps left wingers strengthen their argument.
Scanning the first ten pages of this thread, none of the conservative members here who attacked socialized medicine were willing to go beyond theorycrafting of why socialized medicine is bad. On the other hand, I can link to the OECD national GDP spending on health care (located http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/10/20/2789777.pdf) to show that the most free market health care system of the first world countries leads on per capita and portion of GDP. Socialized health care frees up resources for other areas.
So on neutral sites, like politics.slashdot.org, the conservative members get shouted down by numerical evidence. I just don't think conservatives can survive on the internet when they form sheltered communities. There members may feel the strength of their arguments on their own territory, but their arguments get hammered at on neutral grounds.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://hothouse.net/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/economist-300x215.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.joeydevilla.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/the24typesoflibertarian1.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/2axVG.png)
![[image loading]](http://img718.imageshack.us/img718/3641/bellcurve2.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img641.imageshack.us/img641/7652/bellcurve3.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img97.imageshack.us/img97/9573/bellcurve5.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img375.imageshack.us/img375/2497/bellcurve7.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img411.imageshack.us/img411/4134/bellcurve8.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://thehostess.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/121539336946.png)
![[image loading]](http://www.cbpp.org/images/cms//12-16-09bud-rev6-28-10-f1.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.edwardtufte.com/bboard/images/0002xK-7283.gif)
![[image loading]](http://nefmq09.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/3141139302_45d5b3b0a6_o1.jpg)
discussing politics on the internet... people should know better
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3b/USDebt.png/514px-USDebt.png)
