|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On May 25 2019 07:30 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2019 06:03 Artisreal wrote:
No. There is zero obligation connected with stating that the current (police) system in the US is not capable of treating people fairly. There's also ample evidence to make the argument compelling that it's beyond reform (tried and failed).
What else than a complete (revolutionary) overhaul is an option here?
The status quo isn't an option, and nobody but GH ever presented anything resembling an idea - as far as my memory holds - of how to properly adress the issue. Some might say there isn't (enough of) an issue in the first place - though tbh this is laughable. To me it seems that his position, police being beyond reform, is share or accepted by some, but a different conclusion from it having to be removed, is drawn from the judgement of its current state.
It's ridiculous to assume that he's obligated to present the solution to this problem, just to get the conversation started or even people to accept, that the status quo is a severe problem for many citizens. You're being silly. You can't just throw mud from your moral high ground and expect to be rewarded for your contribution to the enviorment. GH isn't presenting an idea, this is the precise point most people arguing with him have about "abolishing the police". Hes asking for mass murder and the burning down of all civilization because the status quo is less then ideal.
This only shows that you have no interest (or not enough) in changing the status quo.
Possibly because you're not affected enough by the injustice to feel the need to take action. Or think about what to do. Or even care.
I understand and can relate. Though that doesn't make GH's position that the police (in its current form) has to be abolished wrong.
|
On May 25 2019 06:49 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2019 05:31 xDaunt wrote:On May 25 2019 03:25 Danglars wrote:On May 24 2019 11:29 Danglars wrote:On May 24 2019 10:39 xDaunt wrote:On May 24 2019 10:30 Danglars wrote:
Finally we'll have the surveillance info. Barr was pretty quick with the giant Mueller report release, so hopefully he can carry this out with great speed too. Americans deserve answers on the surveillance campaign and actions of domestic spies. Brennan, Comey, Clapper, and the other Obama-era agency heads are toast. But here’s my big prediction: Obama himself is going to be implicated in authorizing and directing the unlawful spying on Americans. The biggest winner here will be the ghost of Nixon, because Obama is going to supplant him as being the most abusive president in history. Bold prediction. I don't think he'll have fingerprints anywhere near the actions of his subordinates. Allowing this stupidity by seeing the reports and doing nothing is one thing, but being dumb enough to have anything in writing is quite another. It's another stain on his administration most likely, but nothing personal to the man. I think the real juice will be the anticipatory classified leaks to the major newspapers to soften the news before it breaks. Yeah, like a day after posting this we get the start. The CIA is exposed in the probe for its role in starting the investigation. This time it's the New York Times that got the leak. Good thing the NYT did not reveal the name in obtaining the info. It's likely that Barr too will censor. WASHINGTON — President Trump’s order allowing Attorney General William P. Barr to declassify any intelligence that sparked the opening of the Russia investigation sets up a potential confrontation with the C.I.A., including over the possible implications for a person close to President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia who provided information to the C.I.A. about his involvement in Moscow’s 2016 election interference.
The concern about the source, who is believed to be still alive, is one of several issues raised by Mr. Trump’s decision to use the intelligence to pursue his political enemies. It has also prompted fears from former national security officials and Democratic lawmakers that other sources or methods of intelligence gathering — among the government’s most closely held secrets — could be made public, not because of leaks to the news media that the administration denounces, but because the president has determined it suits his political purposes.
Mr. Trump granted Mr. Barr’s request for sweeping new authorities to conduct his review of how the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia were investigated. The president ordered the C.I.A. and the other intelligence agencies to cooperate, granting Mr. Barr the authority to unilaterally declassify their documents and thus significant leverage over the intelligence community.
On Friday afternoon, Mr. Trump, heading to his helicopter on the beginning of a trip to Japan, defended his decision and said the declassification would be sweeping. “What are we doing, we are exposing everything,” he told reporters. “We are being transparent.” He expressed no qualms about any national security implications.
Intelligence officials have feared before that their findings were being twisted to political agendas — notably concerns during the run-up to the Iraq war that information about Saddam Hussein’s alleged weapons of mass destruction was being cherry-picked to justify combat. But Mr. Trump’s decision is different.
It allows Mr. Barr, who has used the charged term “spying” to describe efforts to investigate the Trump campaign, sole discretion to declassify the intelligence behind the F.B.I.’s decision to begin investigating whether any Trump aides or associates were working with the Russians. It also raises the specter that officials ranging from the F.B.I. to the C.I.A. to the National Security Agency, which was monitoring Russian officials, will be questioned about their sources and their intent.
The order could be tremendously damaging to the C.I.A. and other intelligence agencies, drying up sources and inhibiting their ability to gather intelligence, said Representative Adam Schiff, Democrat of California and the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.
“The president now seems intent on declassifying intelligence to weaponize it,” Mr. Schiff said in an interview.
Mr. Trump has long held that he was a target of the “deep state,’’ at various points accusing former President Barack Obama without evidence of tapping his phones, the F.B.I. of secretly trying to undermine his candidacy and past intelligence chiefs of bending their findings to prove Russian involvement in his election victory.
He has repeatedly appeared to side with Mr. Putin’s contention that there is no evidence of a Russian campaign to sabotage the 2016 election, even though the Mueller report left no question that the Russian leadership was behind both the theft and publication of emails and other data from Democrats and a social media campaign that ultimately worked to boost Mr. Trump’s candidacy, as well as efforts to tamper with election registration systems.
But it is the human source that particularly worries some former and current intelligence officials. Long nurtured by the C.I.A., the source rose to a position that enabled the informant to provide key information in 2016 about the Russian leadership’s role in the interference campaign.
John O. Brennan, the C.I.A. director under Mr. Obama, would bring reports from the source directly to the White House, keeping them out of the president’s daily intelligence briefing for fear that the briefing document was too widely disseminated. Instead, he would place them in an envelope for Mr. Obama and a tiny circle of aides to read.
The source provided evidence for one of the last major intelligence conclusions that Mr. Obama made public before leaving office: that Mr. Putin himself was behind the Russia hack.
John Sipher, a former C.I.A. official who led Russia operations for the agency, expressed concern that giving the president names of sources or agency officials who oversaw those informants could put those secrets at risk because they would inevitably be more widely disseminated.
“If the president of the United States asks for a name, it would be hard not to provide a name,” Mr. Sipher said. “It wouldn’t do him any good unless he sent it around to people to look into it, and that is where the security problem is, obviously.”
Mr. Schiff pledged that his committee would pay close attention to all of Mr. Barr’s actions in the inquiry. “We are going to expose any abuse, any politicization of intelligence,” he said. NYT My guess is that this "source" was already outed in the Kavalec notes regarding her interview with Steele. And if it is one of the people named in those notes, then Brennan is going to have some explaining to do. Everything that has been made public so far corroborates the theory that the CIA information was the same as the FBI information -- ie it was the garbage from Steele/FusionGPS. We'll see, though. I really doubt it. The NYT talked about a high placed official that "rose to a position that enabled the informant to provide key information in 2016 about the Russian leadership's role in the interference campaign." The Kavalec notes, by contrast, are entirely unredacted. If Steele stumbled upon a highly placed intelligence source and put material obtained from him/her into his dossier, then state department notes containing his name would "out him" and be redacted prior to publication.
I'm not sure that's the case. Kavalec wouldn't know that Surkov (for example) could be a CIA asset. Nor would anyone at State unless explicitly briefed by the CIA. So to the extent that Steele happened to have sources that were also CIs for the CIA, they may not be redacted.
On the question of DOJ fighting FBI/CIA for classified documents relating to the counterintelligence investigation of Trump/other investigations of Trump relating to the 2016 campaign:
Barr's obviously garnered a reputation for no-nonsense investigating, based on his Congressional committee interviews and releases from his office. He's well prepared for any bullshit the CIA and FBI try to pull to keep the head of their branch of government from lawfully declassifying information. You can see the separation of powers and upholding of constitutional governance permeating his testimony thus far. I wonder how much fight officials with their reputation on the line will put up? After all, the DOJ, probably from FBI recommendation, absurdly tried to say the Nunes memo contained confidential sources and methods and could not be released. Barr looks ready for the fight, so I think even stiff opposition will delay things but not prevent the release of the necessary documents.
The institutional resistance to transparency is big reason why Trump delegated declassification authority directly to Barr. He doesn't want any of the other agency heads to impede Barr any further. Cutting ODNI Coats out of the process that he would normally spearhead was particularly notable. Trump clearly doesn't trust him.
|
On May 25 2019 07:34 Artisreal wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2019 07:30 Sermokala wrote:On May 25 2019 06:03 Artisreal wrote:
No. There is zero obligation connected with stating that the current (police) system in the US is not capable of treating people fairly. There's also ample evidence to make the argument compelling that it's beyond reform (tried and failed).
What else than a complete (revolutionary) overhaul is an option here?
The status quo isn't an option, and nobody but GH ever presented anything resembling an idea - as far as my memory holds - of how to properly adress the issue. Some might say there isn't (enough of) an issue in the first place - though tbh this is laughable. To me it seems that his position, police being beyond reform, is share or accepted by some, but a different conclusion from it having to be removed, is drawn from the judgement of its current state.
It's ridiculous to assume that he's obligated to present the solution to this problem, just to get the conversation started or even people to accept, that the status quo is a severe problem for many citizens. You're being silly. You can't just throw mud from your moral high ground and expect to be rewarded for your contribution to the enviorment. GH isn't presenting an idea, this is the precise point most people arguing with him have about "abolishing the police". Hes asking for mass murder and the burning down of all civilization because the status quo is less then ideal. This only shows that you have no interest (or not enough) in changing the status quo. Possibly because you're not affected enough by the injustice to feel the need to take action. Or think about what to do. Or even care. I understand and can relate. Though that doesn't make GH's position that the police (in its current form) has to be abolished wrong.
I don't have enough interest in changing the status quo when the status quo is full supermarkets, new music on the radio, and football coming in the fall. When the other choice is given is hundreds of millions of people dying on an altar of "maybe we'll figure out something better?" I hope you would chose the status quo.
Then again some french people think their revolution was a positive event so go ahead and advocate for the deaths of hundreds of millions. Thats your posision you have to defend.
|
On May 25 2019 07:44 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2019 07:34 Artisreal wrote:On May 25 2019 07:30 Sermokala wrote:On May 25 2019 06:03 Artisreal wrote:
No. There is zero obligation connected with stating that the current (police) system in the US is not capable of treating people fairly. There's also ample evidence to make the argument compelling that it's beyond reform (tried and failed).
What else than a complete (revolutionary) overhaul is an option here?
The status quo isn't an option, and nobody but GH ever presented anything resembling an idea - as far as my memory holds - of how to properly adress the issue. Some might say there isn't (enough of) an issue in the first place - though tbh this is laughable. To me it seems that his position, police being beyond reform, is share or accepted by some, but a different conclusion from it having to be removed, is drawn from the judgement of its current state.
It's ridiculous to assume that he's obligated to present the solution to this problem, just to get the conversation started or even people to accept, that the status quo is a severe problem for many citizens. You're being silly. You can't just throw mud from your moral high ground and expect to be rewarded for your contribution to the enviorment. GH isn't presenting an idea, this is the precise point most people arguing with him have about "abolishing the police". Hes asking for mass murder and the burning down of all civilization because the status quo is less then ideal. This only shows that you have no interest (or not enough) in changing the status quo. Possibly because you're not affected enough by the injustice to feel the need to take action. Or think about what to do. Or even care. I understand and can relate. Though that doesn't make GH's position that the police (in its current form) has to be abolished wrong. I don't have enough interest in changing the status quo when the status quo is full supermarkets, new music on the radio, and football coming in the fall. When the other choice is given is hundreds of millions of people dying on an altar of "maybe we'll figure out something better?" I hope you would chose the status quo. Then again some french people think their revolution was a positive event so go ahead and advocate for the deaths of hundreds of millions. Thats your posision you have to defend.
Fair to group you in with Kwarks positions as well then?
|
On May 25 2019 07:44 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2019 07:34 Artisreal wrote:On May 25 2019 07:30 Sermokala wrote:On May 25 2019 06:03 Artisreal wrote:
No. There is zero obligation connected with stating that the current (police) system in the US is not capable of treating people fairly. There's also ample evidence to make the argument compelling that it's beyond reform (tried and failed).
What else than a complete (revolutionary) overhaul is an option here?
The status quo isn't an option, and nobody but GH ever presented anything resembling an idea - as far as my memory holds - of how to properly adress the issue. Some might say there isn't (enough of) an issue in the first place - though tbh this is laughable. To me it seems that his position, police being beyond reform, is share or accepted by some, but a different conclusion from it having to be removed, is drawn from the judgement of its current state.
It's ridiculous to assume that he's obligated to present the solution to this problem, just to get the conversation started or even people to accept, that the status quo is a severe problem for many citizens. You're being silly. You can't just throw mud from your moral high ground and expect to be rewarded for your contribution to the enviorment. GH isn't presenting an idea, this is the precise point most people arguing with him have about "abolishing the police". Hes asking for mass murder and the burning down of all civilization because the status quo is less then ideal. This only shows that you have no interest (or not enough) in changing the status quo. Possibly because you're not affected enough by the injustice to feel the need to take action. Or think about what to do. Or even care. I understand and can relate. Though that doesn't make GH's position that the police (in its current form) has to be abolished wrong. I don't have enough interest in changing the status quo when the status quo is full supermarkets, new music on the radio, and football coming in the fall. When the other choice is given is hundreds of millions of people dying on an altar of "maybe we'll figure out something better?" I hope you would chose the status quo. Then again some french people think their revolution was a positive event so go ahead and advocate for the deaths of hundreds of millions. Thats your posision you have to defend.
Such a narrow sighted thing to say.
Millions of people die every year due to being exploited, malnourished, poisoned by our waste and what have you.
It's just not you or anyone close to you being affected. Thats why you build up this argumentation that it's better to do nothing than to do anything. And you seem convinced to be right on this one.
Pretty sad.
|
Danglars already said what I wanted to say on Assange, but seriously, it's a precedent that could effectively criminalize national security journalism or the publishing of any leak. There's a reason why even those critical of Assange and Wikileaks are breaking out in a cold sweat and raising their pens in defense of what he represents. He's not finding friends among the Democrats who spent the last three years blaming him for losing the election, and there's a decent chance this goes to the Supreme Court with the numbers favouring his prosecution.
For the people who were in glee when Assange was arrested a few weeks ago, does this change anything?
|
On May 25 2019 08:00 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2019 07:44 Sermokala wrote:On May 25 2019 07:34 Artisreal wrote:On May 25 2019 07:30 Sermokala wrote:On May 25 2019 06:03 Artisreal wrote:
No. There is zero obligation connected with stating that the current (police) system in the US is not capable of treating people fairly. There's also ample evidence to make the argument compelling that it's beyond reform (tried and failed).
What else than a complete (revolutionary) overhaul is an option here?
The status quo isn't an option, and nobody but GH ever presented anything resembling an idea - as far as my memory holds - of how to properly adress the issue. Some might say there isn't (enough of) an issue in the first place - though tbh this is laughable. To me it seems that his position, police being beyond reform, is share or accepted by some, but a different conclusion from it having to be removed, is drawn from the judgement of its current state.
It's ridiculous to assume that he's obligated to present the solution to this problem, just to get the conversation started or even people to accept, that the status quo is a severe problem for many citizens. You're being silly. You can't just throw mud from your moral high ground and expect to be rewarded for your contribution to the enviorment. GH isn't presenting an idea, this is the precise point most people arguing with him have about "abolishing the police". Hes asking for mass murder and the burning down of all civilization because the status quo is less then ideal. This only shows that you have no interest (or not enough) in changing the status quo. Possibly because you're not affected enough by the injustice to feel the need to take action. Or think about what to do. Or even care. I understand and can relate. Though that doesn't make GH's position that the police (in its current form) has to be abolished wrong. I don't have enough interest in changing the status quo when the status quo is full supermarkets, new music on the radio, and football coming in the fall. When the other choice is given is hundreds of millions of people dying on an altar of "maybe we'll figure out something better?" I hope you would chose the status quo. Then again some french people think their revolution was a positive event so go ahead and advocate for the deaths of hundreds of millions. Thats your posision you have to defend. Fair to group you in with Kwarks positions as well then?
At the end of the day, 80% falls into the category whether they want to say so or not. I'm actively trying and have been long before Kwark made that statement, to gather all the resources and monetary wealth I can just because I know the shit is hitting the fan sooner rather than later.
At the same time, we cannot become apathetic to the plights of our fellow humans. We have to make sure we all survive. We also have a duty to take care of the Earth. The problem is, one outweighs the other and some people don't see that. All they see are $$$ and not the deaths that accompany it. Your revolution is a pipe dream, unless it is one of changing minds.
|
|
|
On May 25 2019 09:10 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2019 08:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 25 2019 07:44 Sermokala wrote:On May 25 2019 07:34 Artisreal wrote:On May 25 2019 07:30 Sermokala wrote:On May 25 2019 06:03 Artisreal wrote:
No. There is zero obligation connected with stating that the current (police) system in the US is not capable of treating people fairly. There's also ample evidence to make the argument compelling that it's beyond reform (tried and failed).
What else than a complete (revolutionary) overhaul is an option here?
The status quo isn't an option, and nobody but GH ever presented anything resembling an idea - as far as my memory holds - of how to properly adress the issue. Some might say there isn't (enough of) an issue in the first place - though tbh this is laughable. To me it seems that his position, police being beyond reform, is share or accepted by some, but a different conclusion from it having to be removed, is drawn from the judgement of its current state.
It's ridiculous to assume that he's obligated to present the solution to this problem, just to get the conversation started or even people to accept, that the status quo is a severe problem for many citizens. You're being silly. You can't just throw mud from your moral high ground and expect to be rewarded for your contribution to the enviorment. GH isn't presenting an idea, this is the precise point most people arguing with him have about "abolishing the police". Hes asking for mass murder and the burning down of all civilization because the status quo is less then ideal. This only shows that you have no interest (or not enough) in changing the status quo. Possibly because you're not affected enough by the injustice to feel the need to take action. Or think about what to do. Or even care. I understand and can relate. Though that doesn't make GH's position that the police (in its current form) has to be abolished wrong. I don't have enough interest in changing the status quo when the status quo is full supermarkets, new music on the radio, and football coming in the fall. When the other choice is given is hundreds of millions of people dying on an altar of "maybe we'll figure out something better?" I hope you would chose the status quo. Then again some french people think their revolution was a positive event so go ahead and advocate for the deaths of hundreds of millions. Thats your posision you have to defend. Fair to group you in with Kwarks positions as well then? At the end of the day, 80% falls into the category whether they want to say so or not. I'm actively trying and have been long before Kwark made that statement, to gather all the resources and monetary wealth I can just because I know the shit is hitting the fan sooner rather than later. At the same time, we cannot become apathetic to the plights of our fellow humans. We have to make sure we all survive. We also have a duty to take care of the Earth. The problem is, one outweighs the other and some people don't see that. All they see are $$$ and not the deaths that accompany it. Your revolution is a pipe dream, unless it is one of changing minds.
I reference Kwark because he was the first to finally just say what the logical conclusion of the anti-revolution crowd argument is, I've gotten the impression it's essentially the same position everyone poo-pooing the idea of revolution shares, but so far only Kwark, and Shockey and yourself to a lesser degree, have tried to own it.
I honestly don't know how you got the impression the revolution I'm advocating we all be part of wouldn't be one of changing minds?
|
On May 25 2019 10:52 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2019 10:46 xDaunt wrote:On May 25 2019 10:42 Nebuchad wrote:On May 25 2019 10:38 xDaunt wrote:On May 25 2019 10:31 Nebuchad wrote:On May 25 2019 09:52 Danglars wrote:
Maybe you think the best-run nation is one with a somewhat intrusive government empowered to make many choices for its citizen's lives that increase health and safety. Do you think arguments you have on the internet will convince you that it's an unacceptable tradeoff with individual freedoms, whose preservation should be given very high weighting in balancing choices? I'd like to answer this specific point because why not. No I don't think that, actually, because I'm not a tankie. I don't think that we should have more government, I think we should have more democratic control. Those aren't the same thing. Since you like freedom, here's a question for you: if the people in your system work for a capitalist boss, that runs his enterprise for profit and is incentivized to put their livelihood at risk if that's more profitable than not doing it, and the people in my system work for themselves (not the state, themselves) as they control the means of production of their labor, where are we maximizing freedom? The answer is that you can only truly work for yourself in a capitalist system that allows for free enterprise. If the system that I describe, that you think is impossible, was instead possible, would you agree that it maximizes freedom of individuals, and would you as a result be in favor of it? Your system necessarily involves massive government intervention that would deprive certain persons of their rights to free enterprise by redistributing their property rights to other persons. There is no freedom in that. Your system is a logical impossibility. However, I’m all ears if you disagree. Absolutely it would entail depriving the capitalist class of their property rights, that's certainly true. We're not giving them to other people though, we're just going to have democratic control. I have acknowledged that you think this is impossible, but that's not the question I asked. I asked if you think, provided that it would be possible, it would maximize freedom, and if you would as a result be in favor of it.
In a hypothetical, completely unrealistic world in which we have cured numerous deficiencies of human character thereby allowing such a system to work, then yes, I'd be in favor of it.
|
|
|
On May 25 2019 11:02 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2019 10:52 Nebuchad wrote:On May 25 2019 10:46 xDaunt wrote:On May 25 2019 10:42 Nebuchad wrote:On May 25 2019 10:38 xDaunt wrote:On May 25 2019 10:31 Nebuchad wrote:On May 25 2019 09:52 Danglars wrote:
Maybe you think the best-run nation is one with a somewhat intrusive government empowered to make many choices for its citizen's lives that increase health and safety. Do you think arguments you have on the internet will convince you that it's an unacceptable tradeoff with individual freedoms, whose preservation should be given very high weighting in balancing choices? I'd like to answer this specific point because why not. No I don't think that, actually, because I'm not a tankie. I don't think that we should have more government, I think we should have more democratic control. Those aren't the same thing. Since you like freedom, here's a question for you: if the people in your system work for a capitalist boss, that runs his enterprise for profit and is incentivized to put their livelihood at risk if that's more profitable than not doing it, and the people in my system work for themselves (not the state, themselves) as they control the means of production of their labor, where are we maximizing freedom? The answer is that you can only truly work for yourself in a capitalist system that allows for free enterprise. If the system that I describe, that you think is impossible, was instead possible, would you agree that it maximizes freedom of individuals, and would you as a result be in favor of it? Your system necessarily involves massive government intervention that would deprive certain persons of their rights to free enterprise by redistributing their property rights to other persons. There is no freedom in that. Your system is a logical impossibility. However, I’m all ears if you disagree. Absolutely it would entail depriving the capitalist class of their property rights, that's certainly true. We're not giving them to other people though, we're just going to have democratic control. I have acknowledged that you think this is impossible, but that's not the question I asked. I asked if you think, provided that it would be possible, it would maximize freedom, and if you would as a result be in favor of it. In a hypothetical, completely unrealistic world in which we have cured numerous deficiencies of human character thereby allowing such a system to work, then yes, I'd be in favor of it.
So the problem isn't the system it's your perception of immutable human characteristics which have to be very emotionally and anecdotally based rather than scientific.
|
On May 25 2019 10:57 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2019 09:10 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On May 25 2019 08:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 25 2019 07:44 Sermokala wrote:On May 25 2019 07:34 Artisreal wrote:On May 25 2019 07:30 Sermokala wrote:On May 25 2019 06:03 Artisreal wrote:
No. There is zero obligation connected with stating that the current (police) system in the US is not capable of treating people fairly. There's also ample evidence to make the argument compelling that it's beyond reform (tried and failed).
What else than a complete (revolutionary) overhaul is an option here?
The status quo isn't an option, and nobody but GH ever presented anything resembling an idea - as far as my memory holds - of how to properly adress the issue. Some might say there isn't (enough of) an issue in the first place - though tbh this is laughable. To me it seems that his position, police being beyond reform, is share or accepted by some, but a different conclusion from it having to be removed, is drawn from the judgement of its current state.
It's ridiculous to assume that he's obligated to present the solution to this problem, just to get the conversation started or even people to accept, that the status quo is a severe problem for many citizens. You're being silly. You can't just throw mud from your moral high ground and expect to be rewarded for your contribution to the enviorment. GH isn't presenting an idea, this is the precise point most people arguing with him have about "abolishing the police". Hes asking for mass murder and the burning down of all civilization because the status quo is less then ideal. This only shows that you have no interest (or not enough) in changing the status quo. Possibly because you're not affected enough by the injustice to feel the need to take action. Or think about what to do. Or even care. I understand and can relate. Though that doesn't make GH's position that the police (in its current form) has to be abolished wrong. I don't have enough interest in changing the status quo when the status quo is full supermarkets, new music on the radio, and football coming in the fall. When the other choice is given is hundreds of millions of people dying on an altar of "maybe we'll figure out something better?" I hope you would chose the status quo. Then again some french people think their revolution was a positive event so go ahead and advocate for the deaths of hundreds of millions. Thats your posision you have to defend. Fair to group you in with Kwarks positions as well then? At the end of the day, 80% falls into the category whether they want to say so or not. I'm actively trying and have been long before Kwark made that statement, to gather all the resources and monetary wealth I can just because I know the shit is hitting the fan sooner rather than later. At the same time, we cannot become apathetic to the plights of our fellow humans. We have to make sure we all survive. We also have a duty to take care of the Earth. The problem is, one outweighs the other and some people don't see that. All they see are $$$ and not the deaths that accompany it. Your revolution is a pipe dream, unless it is one of changing minds. I reference Kwark because he was the first to finally just say what the logical conclusion of the anti-revolution crowd argument is, I've gotten the impression it's essentially the same position everyone poo-pooing the idea of revolution shares, but so far only Kwark, and Shockey and yourself to a lesser degree, have tried to own it. I honestly don't know how you got the impression the revolution I'm advocating we all be part of wouldn't be one of changing minds?
When you speak of revolution without fully espousing your ticket items, the first reaction is one of violence. Physical revolution against the oppressors of the people who have yet to be named. That is the revolution I speak of. When I say your dreamed revolution is a pipe dream, I mean it in all respects. You won't change minds. You won't get anyone to follow you. You will be one man, throwing a party in Time's Square for 5 people. That is all.
I've owned the concept that Kwark has stated for a long time. But I seek to help and free people through the wealth I gather, by giving it away freely as quickly as possible. Not as a hand out, but as a means to increase one's own self-worth. Think of it as reparations from one black person to another. I give you financial freedom to live and do as you see fit. What will become of that, I have no clue. But the revolution of changing minds has begun, albeit in a manner you did not see.
|
On May 25 2019 11:18 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2019 10:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 25 2019 09:10 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On May 25 2019 08:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 25 2019 07:44 Sermokala wrote:On May 25 2019 07:34 Artisreal wrote:On May 25 2019 07:30 Sermokala wrote:On May 25 2019 06:03 Artisreal wrote:
No. There is zero obligation connected with stating that the current (police) system in the US is not capable of treating people fairly. There's also ample evidence to make the argument compelling that it's beyond reform (tried and failed).
What else than a complete (revolutionary) overhaul is an option here?
The status quo isn't an option, and nobody but GH ever presented anything resembling an idea - as far as my memory holds - of how to properly adress the issue. Some might say there isn't (enough of) an issue in the first place - though tbh this is laughable. To me it seems that his position, police being beyond reform, is share or accepted by some, but a different conclusion from it having to be removed, is drawn from the judgement of its current state.
It's ridiculous to assume that he's obligated to present the solution to this problem, just to get the conversation started or even people to accept, that the status quo is a severe problem for many citizens. You're being silly. You can't just throw mud from your moral high ground and expect to be rewarded for your contribution to the enviorment. GH isn't presenting an idea, this is the precise point most people arguing with him have about "abolishing the police". Hes asking for mass murder and the burning down of all civilization because the status quo is less then ideal. This only shows that you have no interest (or not enough) in changing the status quo. Possibly because you're not affected enough by the injustice to feel the need to take action. Or think about what to do. Or even care. I understand and can relate. Though that doesn't make GH's position that the police (in its current form) has to be abolished wrong. I don't have enough interest in changing the status quo when the status quo is full supermarkets, new music on the radio, and football coming in the fall. When the other choice is given is hundreds of millions of people dying on an altar of "maybe we'll figure out something better?" I hope you would chose the status quo. Then again some french people think their revolution was a positive event so go ahead and advocate for the deaths of hundreds of millions. Thats your posision you have to defend. Fair to group you in with Kwarks positions as well then? At the end of the day, 80% falls into the category whether they want to say so or not. I'm actively trying and have been long before Kwark made that statement, to gather all the resources and monetary wealth I can just because I know the shit is hitting the fan sooner rather than later. At the same time, we cannot become apathetic to the plights of our fellow humans. We have to make sure we all survive. We also have a duty to take care of the Earth. The problem is, one outweighs the other and some people don't see that. All they see are $$$ and not the deaths that accompany it. Your revolution is a pipe dream, unless it is one of changing minds. I reference Kwark because he was the first to finally just say what the logical conclusion of the anti-revolution crowd argument is, I've gotten the impression it's essentially the same position everyone poo-pooing the idea of revolution shares, but so far only Kwark, and Shockey and yourself to a lesser degree, have tried to own it. I honestly don't know how you got the impression the revolution I'm advocating we all be part of wouldn't be one of changing minds? When you speak of revolution without fully espousing your ticket items, the first reaction is one of violence. Physical revolution against the oppressors of the people who have yet to be named. That is the revolution I speak of. When I say your dreamed revolution is a pipe dream, I mean it in all respects. You won't change minds. You won't get anyone to follow you. You will be one man, throwing a party in Time's Square for 5 people. That is all.
My argument to Kwark and others that share your perspective (Kwark isn't particularly philanthropic to my knowledge) is that's true so long as those who see the truth I speak and instead of joining grab their club (however padded it may be).
I've owned the concept that Kwark has stated for a long time. But I seek to help and free people through the wealth I gather, by giving it away freely as quickly as possible. Not as a hand out, but as a means to increase one's own self-worth. Think of it as reparations from one black person to another. I give you financial freedom to live and do as you see fit. What will become of that, I have no clue. But the revolution of changing minds has begun, albeit in a manner you did not see.
That's the status quo that's leading us toward catastrophic climate collapse and mass extinctions.
I've said several times I'd very much prefer a bloodless revolution, but think it's unlikely the oligarchs and their sycophants will peacefully relinquish their loot. Most people agree that the Trump's and Walton's of the country aren't going to either.
|
On May 25 2019 09:10 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2019 08:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 25 2019 07:44 Sermokala wrote:On May 25 2019 07:34 Artisreal wrote:On May 25 2019 07:30 Sermokala wrote:On May 25 2019 06:03 Artisreal wrote:
No. There is zero obligation connected with stating that the current (police) system in the US is not capable of treating people fairly. There's also ample evidence to make the argument compelling that it's beyond reform (tried and failed).
What else than a complete (revolutionary) overhaul is an option here?
The status quo isn't an option, and nobody but GH ever presented anything resembling an idea - as far as my memory holds - of how to properly adress the issue. Some might say there isn't (enough of) an issue in the first place - though tbh this is laughable. To me it seems that his position, police being beyond reform, is share or accepted by some, but a different conclusion from it having to be removed, is drawn from the judgement of its current state.
It's ridiculous to assume that he's obligated to present the solution to this problem, just to get the conversation started or even people to accept, that the status quo is a severe problem for many citizens. You're being silly. You can't just throw mud from your moral high ground and expect to be rewarded for your contribution to the enviorment. GH isn't presenting an idea, this is the precise point most people arguing with him have about "abolishing the police". Hes asking for mass murder and the burning down of all civilization because the status quo is less then ideal. This only shows that you have no interest (or not enough) in changing the status quo. Possibly because you're not affected enough by the injustice to feel the need to take action. Or think about what to do. Or even care. I understand and can relate. Though that doesn't make GH's position that the police (in its current form) has to be abolished wrong. I don't have enough interest in changing the status quo when the status quo is full supermarkets, new music on the radio, and football coming in the fall. When the other choice is given is hundreds of millions of people dying on an altar of "maybe we'll figure out something better?" I hope you would chose the status quo. Then again some french people think their revolution was a positive event so go ahead and advocate for the deaths of hundreds of millions. Thats your posision you have to defend. Fair to group you in with Kwarks positions as well then? At the end of the day, 80% falls into the category whether they want to say so or not. I'm actively trying and have been long before Kwark made that statement, to gather all the resources and monetary wealth I can just because I know the shit is hitting the fan sooner rather than later.
Did you move out of a large city? If not you don’t have a chance.
Personally i bought some land in a country town 5 years ago.It’s paid off but i need 3 1/2 years until i get my long service payout from work so i can build.Time will tell if i left it all too late.
|
On May 25 2019 03:25 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2019 11:29 Danglars wrote:On May 24 2019 10:39 xDaunt wrote:On May 24 2019 10:30 Danglars wrote:
Finally we'll have the surveillance info. Barr was pretty quick with the giant Mueller report release, so hopefully he can carry this out with great speed too. Americans deserve answers on the surveillance campaign and actions of domestic spies. Brennan, Comey, Clapper, and the other Obama-era agency heads are toast. But here’s my big prediction: Obama himself is going to be implicated in authorizing and directing the unlawful spying on Americans. The biggest winner here will be the ghost of Nixon, because Obama is going to supplant him as being the most abusive president in history. Bold prediction. I don't think he'll have fingerprints anywhere near the actions of his subordinates. Allowing this stupidity by seeing the reports and doing nothing is one thing, but being dumb enough to have anything in writing is quite another. It's another stain on his administration most likely, but nothing personal to the man. I think the real juice will be the anticipatory classified leaks to the major newspapers to soften the news before it breaks. Yeah, like a day after posting this we get the start. The CIA is exposed in the probe for its role in starting the investigation. This time it's the New York Times that got the leak. Good thing the NYT did not reveal the name in obtaining the info. It's likely that Barr too will censor. https://twitter.com/jabeale/status/1131971172629995520Show nested quote +WASHINGTON — President Trump’s order allowing Attorney General William P. Barr to declassify any intelligence that sparked the opening of the Russia investigation sets up a potential confrontation with the C.I.A., including over the possible implications for a person close to President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia who provided information to the C.I.A. about his involvement in Moscow’s 2016 election interference.
The concern about the source, who is believed to be still alive, is one of several issues raised by Mr. Trump’s decision to use the intelligence to pursue his political enemies. It has also prompted fears from former national security officials and Democratic lawmakers that other sources or methods of intelligence gathering — among the government’s most closely held secrets — could be made public, not because of leaks to the news media that the administration denounces, but because the president has determined it suits his political purposes.
Mr. Trump granted Mr. Barr’s request for sweeping new authorities to conduct his review of how the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia were investigated. The president ordered the C.I.A. and the other intelligence agencies to cooperate, granting Mr. Barr the authority to unilaterally declassify their documents and thus significant leverage over the intelligence community.
On Friday afternoon, Mr. Trump, heading to his helicopter on the beginning of a trip to Japan, defended his decision and said the declassification would be sweeping. “What are we doing, we are exposing everything,” he told reporters. “We are being transparent.” He expressed no qualms about any national security implications.
Intelligence officials have feared before that their findings were being twisted to political agendas — notably concerns during the run-up to the Iraq war that information about Saddam Hussein’s alleged weapons of mass destruction was being cherry-picked to justify combat. But Mr. Trump’s decision is different.
It allows Mr. Barr, who has used the charged term “spying” to describe efforts to investigate the Trump campaign, sole discretion to declassify the intelligence behind the F.B.I.’s decision to begin investigating whether any Trump aides or associates were working with the Russians. It also raises the specter that officials ranging from the F.B.I. to the C.I.A. to the National Security Agency, which was monitoring Russian officials, will be questioned about their sources and their intent.
The order could be tremendously damaging to the C.I.A. and other intelligence agencies, drying up sources and inhibiting their ability to gather intelligence, said Representative Adam Schiff, Democrat of California and the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.
“The president now seems intent on declassifying intelligence to weaponize it,” Mr. Schiff said in an interview.
Mr. Trump has long held that he was a target of the “deep state,’’ at various points accusing former President Barack Obama without evidence of tapping his phones, the F.B.I. of secretly trying to undermine his candidacy and past intelligence chiefs of bending their findings to prove Russian involvement in his election victory.
He has repeatedly appeared to side with Mr. Putin’s contention that there is no evidence of a Russian campaign to sabotage the 2016 election, even though the Mueller report left no question that the Russian leadership was behind both the theft and publication of emails and other data from Democrats and a social media campaign that ultimately worked to boost Mr. Trump’s candidacy, as well as efforts to tamper with election registration systems.
But it is the human source that particularly worries some former and current intelligence officials. Long nurtured by the C.I.A., the source rose to a position that enabled the informant to provide key information in 2016 about the Russian leadership’s role in the interference campaign.
John O. Brennan, the C.I.A. director under Mr. Obama, would bring reports from the source directly to the White House, keeping them out of the president’s daily intelligence briefing for fear that the briefing document was too widely disseminated. Instead, he would place them in an envelope for Mr. Obama and a tiny circle of aides to read.
The source provided evidence for one of the last major intelligence conclusions that Mr. Obama made public before leaving office: that Mr. Putin himself was behind the Russia hack.
John Sipher, a former C.I.A. official who led Russia operations for the agency, expressed concern that giving the president names of sources or agency officials who oversaw those informants could put those secrets at risk because they would inevitably be more widely disseminated.
“If the president of the United States asks for a name, it would be hard not to provide a name,” Mr. Sipher said. “It wouldn’t do him any good unless he sent it around to people to look into it, and that is where the security problem is, obviously.”
Mr. Schiff pledged that his committee would pay close attention to all of Mr. Barr’s actions in the inquiry. “We are going to expose any abuse, any politicization of intelligence,” he said. NYT
It seems pretty speculative to claim that this story is a nefarious plot to burn a source. I mean, the source isn't named. If they actually had a high level source in the Russian government, it may actually lean in their favor.
|
On May 25 2019 11:46 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2019 09:10 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On May 25 2019 08:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 25 2019 07:44 Sermokala wrote:On May 25 2019 07:34 Artisreal wrote:On May 25 2019 07:30 Sermokala wrote:On May 25 2019 06:03 Artisreal wrote:
No. There is zero obligation connected with stating that the current (police) system in the US is not capable of treating people fairly. There's also ample evidence to make the argument compelling that it's beyond reform (tried and failed).
What else than a complete (revolutionary) overhaul is an option here?
The status quo isn't an option, and nobody but GH ever presented anything resembling an idea - as far as my memory holds - of how to properly adress the issue. Some might say there isn't (enough of) an issue in the first place - though tbh this is laughable. To me it seems that his position, police being beyond reform, is share or accepted by some, but a different conclusion from it having to be removed, is drawn from the judgement of its current state.
It's ridiculous to assume that he's obligated to present the solution to this problem, just to get the conversation started or even people to accept, that the status quo is a severe problem for many citizens. You're being silly. You can't just throw mud from your moral high ground and expect to be rewarded for your contribution to the enviorment. GH isn't presenting an idea, this is the precise point most people arguing with him have about "abolishing the police". Hes asking for mass murder and the burning down of all civilization because the status quo is less then ideal. This only shows that you have no interest (or not enough) in changing the status quo. Possibly because you're not affected enough by the injustice to feel the need to take action. Or think about what to do. Or even care. I understand and can relate. Though that doesn't make GH's position that the police (in its current form) has to be abolished wrong. I don't have enough interest in changing the status quo when the status quo is full supermarkets, new music on the radio, and football coming in the fall. When the other choice is given is hundreds of millions of people dying on an altar of "maybe we'll figure out something better?" I hope you would chose the status quo. Then again some french people think their revolution was a positive event so go ahead and advocate for the deaths of hundreds of millions. Thats your posision you have to defend. Fair to group you in with Kwarks positions as well then? At the end of the day, 80% falls into the category whether they want to say so or not. I'm actively trying and have been long before Kwark made that statement, to gather all the resources and monetary wealth I can just because I know the shit is hitting the fan sooner rather than later. Did you move out of a large city? If not you don’t have a chance. Personally i bought some land in a country town 5 years ago.It’s paid off but i need 3 1/2 years until i get my long service payout from work so i can build.Time will tell if i left it all too late.
I live in Chicago. Just left Kansas City and San Diego. I've also lived in Tokyo. Why do you ask?
|
On May 25 2019 12:00 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2019 11:46 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On May 25 2019 09:10 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On May 25 2019 08:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 25 2019 07:44 Sermokala wrote:On May 25 2019 07:34 Artisreal wrote:On May 25 2019 07:30 Sermokala wrote:On May 25 2019 06:03 Artisreal wrote:
No. There is zero obligation connected with stating that the current (police) system in the US is not capable of treating people fairly. There's also ample evidence to make the argument compelling that it's beyond reform (tried and failed).
What else than a complete (revolutionary) overhaul is an option here?
The status quo isn't an option, and nobody but GH ever presented anything resembling an idea - as far as my memory holds - of how to properly adress the issue. Some might say there isn't (enough of) an issue in the first place - though tbh this is laughable. To me it seems that his position, police being beyond reform, is share or accepted by some, but a different conclusion from it having to be removed, is drawn from the judgement of its current state.
It's ridiculous to assume that he's obligated to present the solution to this problem, just to get the conversation started or even people to accept, that the status quo is a severe problem for many citizens. You're being silly. You can't just throw mud from your moral high ground and expect to be rewarded for your contribution to the enviorment. GH isn't presenting an idea, this is the precise point most people arguing with him have about "abolishing the police". Hes asking for mass murder and the burning down of all civilization because the status quo is less then ideal. This only shows that you have no interest (or not enough) in changing the status quo. Possibly because you're not affected enough by the injustice to feel the need to take action. Or think about what to do. Or even care. I understand and can relate. Though that doesn't make GH's position that the police (in its current form) has to be abolished wrong. I don't have enough interest in changing the status quo when the status quo is full supermarkets, new music on the radio, and football coming in the fall. When the other choice is given is hundreds of millions of people dying on an altar of "maybe we'll figure out something better?" I hope you would chose the status quo. Then again some french people think their revolution was a positive event so go ahead and advocate for the deaths of hundreds of millions. Thats your posision you have to defend. Fair to group you in with Kwarks positions as well then? At the end of the day, 80% falls into the category whether they want to say so or not. I'm actively trying and have been long before Kwark made that statement, to gather all the resources and monetary wealth I can just because I know the shit is hitting the fan sooner rather than later. Did you move out of a large city? If not you don’t have a chance. Personally i bought some land in a country town 5 years ago.It’s paid off but i need 3 1/2 years until i get my long service payout from work so i can build.Time will tell if i left it all too late. I live in Chicago. Just left Kansas City and San Diego. I've also lived in Tokyo. Why do you ask?
I think nettles invests so I presume he's aware there wont be any drinkable water in Chicago and most major metros unless you're part of the uber wealthy or belong to one of the corporate covens which has water allocations.
Additionally city property will be worthless to those who can't personally (or through private employment/networking) secure it as there will be no public police force (besides what will basically be roving gangs).
Also the dense populations of desperate people are generally unsafe and will be cesspools of disease, squalor, and violence. Incomes under ~$250k with millions of hard assets in major metros won't fare much if any better than the homeless people who are familiar with the life increasingly more of society will endure.
Finally, you'll need to be largely self-sufficient in the post climate collapse world so land and a home away from society is pretty much a must for those outside of the aforementioned sycophantic groups. At least that's why I've taken similar actions anyway.
None of the places you've lived will be able to support a fraction of the populations (at least not at a comparable quality of life) they do now in 50-100 years based on the best available science and political realities.
EDIT: Just realized that sounded like an intro to an ep of "Doomsday Preppers" except it's not paranoid rantings, that's literally what the science says (granted I'm fudging the income and wealth numbers as that's largely unpredictable) .
|
On May 25 2019 11:07 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2019 11:02 xDaunt wrote:On May 25 2019 10:52 Nebuchad wrote:On May 25 2019 10:46 xDaunt wrote:On May 25 2019 10:42 Nebuchad wrote:On May 25 2019 10:38 xDaunt wrote:On May 25 2019 10:31 Nebuchad wrote:On May 25 2019 09:52 Danglars wrote:
Maybe you think the best-run nation is one with a somewhat intrusive government empowered to make many choices for its citizen's lives that increase health and safety. Do you think arguments you have on the internet will convince you that it's an unacceptable tradeoff with individual freedoms, whose preservation should be given very high weighting in balancing choices? I'd like to answer this specific point because why not. No I don't think that, actually, because I'm not a tankie. I don't think that we should have more government, I think we should have more democratic control. Those aren't the same thing. Since you like freedom, here's a question for you: if the people in your system work for a capitalist boss, that runs his enterprise for profit and is incentivized to put their livelihood at risk if that's more profitable than not doing it, and the people in my system work for themselves (not the state, themselves) as they control the means of production of their labor, where are we maximizing freedom? The answer is that you can only truly work for yourself in a capitalist system that allows for free enterprise. If the system that I describe, that you think is impossible, was instead possible, would you agree that it maximizes freedom of individuals, and would you as a result be in favor of it? Your system necessarily involves massive government intervention that would deprive certain persons of their rights to free enterprise by redistributing their property rights to other persons. There is no freedom in that. Your system is a logical impossibility. However, I’m all ears if you disagree. Absolutely it would entail depriving the capitalist class of their property rights, that's certainly true. We're not giving them to other people though, we're just going to have democratic control. I have acknowledged that you think this is impossible, but that's not the question I asked. I asked if you think, provided that it would be possible, it would maximize freedom, and if you would as a result be in favor of it. In a hypothetical, completely unrealistic world in which we have cured numerous deficiencies of human character thereby allowing such a system to work, then yes, I'd be in favor of it. So the problem isn't the system it's your perception of immutable human characteristics which have to be very emotionally and anecdotally based rather than scientific.
You can’t say that the problem isn’t the system when it doesn’t work in the environment that it would be used in. So yes, the problem very much is the system.
|
On May 25 2019 12:09 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2019 11:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 25 2019 11:02 xDaunt wrote:On May 25 2019 10:52 Nebuchad wrote:On May 25 2019 10:46 xDaunt wrote:On May 25 2019 10:42 Nebuchad wrote:On May 25 2019 10:38 xDaunt wrote:On May 25 2019 10:31 Nebuchad wrote:On May 25 2019 09:52 Danglars wrote:
Maybe you think the best-run nation is one with a somewhat intrusive government empowered to make many choices for its citizen's lives that increase health and safety. Do you think arguments you have on the internet will convince you that it's an unacceptable tradeoff with individual freedoms, whose preservation should be given very high weighting in balancing choices? I'd like to answer this specific point because why not. No I don't think that, actually, because I'm not a tankie. I don't think that we should have more government, I think we should have more democratic control. Those aren't the same thing. Since you like freedom, here's a question for you: if the people in your system work for a capitalist boss, that runs his enterprise for profit and is incentivized to put their livelihood at risk if that's more profitable than not doing it, and the people in my system work for themselves (not the state, themselves) as they control the means of production of their labor, where are we maximizing freedom? The answer is that you can only truly work for yourself in a capitalist system that allows for free enterprise. If the system that I describe, that you think is impossible, was instead possible, would you agree that it maximizes freedom of individuals, and would you as a result be in favor of it? Your system necessarily involves massive government intervention that would deprive certain persons of their rights to free enterprise by redistributing their property rights to other persons. There is no freedom in that. Your system is a logical impossibility. However, I’m all ears if you disagree. Absolutely it would entail depriving the capitalist class of their property rights, that's certainly true. We're not giving them to other people though, we're just going to have democratic control. I have acknowledged that you think this is impossible, but that's not the question I asked. I asked if you think, provided that it would be possible, it would maximize freedom, and if you would as a result be in favor of it. In a hypothetical, completely unrealistic world in which we have cured numerous deficiencies of human character thereby allowing such a system to work, then yes, I'd be in favor of it. So the problem isn't the system it's your perception of immutable human characteristics which have to be very emotionally and anecdotally based rather than scientific. You can’t say that the problem isn’t the system when it doesn’t work in the environment that it would be used in. So yes, the problem very much is the system.
I mean in order to convince you to endorse the system we don't have to fix the system we have to change your perception/belief in a particular set of immutable human characteristics that I've found in my thorough but limited research largely not to be supported by the science, but almost entirely on anecdote and emotion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
