EPTAnd on command vs free economics I lean towards free as the competition usually yields better results.
And I abhor nepotism, people should make it based off their own merits/work not of whom they know or are related too.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1649
| Forum Index > General Forum |
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 | ||
Destructicon
4713 Posts
And on command vs free economics I lean towards free as the competition usually yields better results. And I abhor nepotism, people should make it based off their own merits/work not of whom they know or are related too. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On July 10 2019 04:19 KwarK wrote: It’s also worth reminding people that wage theft by employers is the biggest kind of theft. its just a corrective for all the time people steal from their employers | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12377 Posts
On July 10 2019 04:22 Destructicon wrote: By your description of capitalism vs socialism I lean socialist as it is the fairer distribution of wealth, taking into account productivity of the laborer, hence merit. And on command vs free economics I lean towards free as the competition usually yields better results. And I abhor nepotism, people should make it based off their own merits/work not of whom they know or are related too. I always found it extremely weird for someone to identify as a libertarian and not be a libertarian socialist, so reading this post was very validating to me =) | ||
KwarK
United States43373 Posts
On July 10 2019 04:22 Destructicon wrote: By your description of capitalism vs socialism I lean socialist as it is the fairer distribution of wealth, taking into account productivity of the laborer, hence merit. And on command vs free economics I lean towards free as the competition usually yields better results. And I abhor nepotism, people should make it based off their own merits/work not of whom they know or are related too. The definition of better results is the problem here. Greater efficiency is probably true, and it probably is more efficient to abandon Appalachia than to fix it, as capitalist companies have collectively agreed to do. It’s more efficient to have one megastore than it is to have a high street. But efficiency is about using resources optimally to achieve a goal and if that goal is the wrong one then the efficiency isn’t helping anyone. The free market has very efficiently given all of the wealth generated in the last few decades to a handful of people. Nobody would question the efficiency with which this has been achieved but many people would disagree with whether that efficiency necessarily means that the redistribution of wealth has been a good thing. | ||
|
pmh
1375 Posts
| ||
|
Destructicon
4713 Posts
https://www.theverge.com/2019/7/9/20687521/donald-trump-president-twitter-blocking-appeals-ruling?fbclid=IwAR11abql0rDYJUsjuz3iwJBBZncld6wqg9s-KD-nt2sOKDP2STtbmQSsiVs The gist of it is. 1. Trump created his twitter account before becoming POTUS. 2. Trump blocked some people on twitter. 3. Last year a has ruled that blocking them is a violation of the 1st Amendment as he is a public figure and, his tweeting is the equivalent of creating a public forum and everybody should have the right to participate in it. 4. The White House appealed the decision but today the appeal court defended the lower court interpretation. I am bringing this up as I think there are some weird implications here. Basically the court is saying that blocking people is the equivalent of denying them free speech. Yet, twitter is allowed under Article 230 (The Internet Decency Act) to itself censor certain speech and/or ban certain people based on what it defines as hate speech, despite this being protected under the 1st Amendment. Isn't this court ruling in a way, a double standard? If Trump is not allowed to block someone, as it is a violation of the 1st Amendment then, shouldn't twitter be unable to say, ban Benjamin Carl (Sargon of Akkad) given that he was also a public figure (ran for MP with UKIP)? If we now consider social media to be a public forum, even if owned by private companies than, shouldn't article 230 be amended to eliminate the potential to censor certain protected speech or people? I'm personally of the opinion that the big tech companies have abused article 230 to selectively censor certain discourse and an amendment is well overdue. | ||
|
KwarK
United States43373 Posts
It is, of course, all absurd. The idea that the government is obliged to provide things for citizens that private companies are not is a double standard but one that is so breathtakingly obvious it shouldn’t need pointing out. They’re skipping the core part of the argument which is that different entities have different obligations to provide access to public discourse. Their argument goes “A isn’t allowed to do this, B is allowed to do this, double standard?” to which the obvious answer is “A and B are different fucking things”. You might as well argue that Olivia Wilde’s husband gets to fuck her but I don’t so clearly that’s a double standard while neglecting the part where I’m not married to Olivia Wilde. | ||
|
brian
United States9633 Posts
| ||
|
farvacola
United States18843 Posts
Edit: and to be clear, yes, the government/private entity divide is a part of it as well. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22013 Posts
On July 10 2019 06:16 Destructicon wrote: Twitter is a company.I saw this news piece earlier today and wanted to start a discussion on it. https://www.theverge.com/2019/7/9/20687521/donald-trump-president-twitter-blocking-appeals-ruling?fbclid=IwAR11abql0rDYJUsjuz3iwJBBZncld6wqg9s-KD-nt2sOKDP2STtbmQSsiVs The gist of it is. 1. Trump created his twitter account before becoming POTUS. 2. Trump blocked some people on twitter. 3. Last year a has ruled that blocking them is a violation of the 1st Amendment as he is a public figure and, his tweeting is the equivalent of creating a public forum and everybody should have the right to participate in it. 4. The White House appealed the decision but today the appeal court defended the lower court interpretation. I am bringing this up as I think there are some weird implications here. Basically the court is saying that blocking people is the equivalent of denying them free speech. Yet, twitter is allowed under Article 230 (The Internet Decency Act) to itself censor certain speech and/or ban certain people based on what it defines as hate speech, despite this being protected under the 1st Amendment. Isn't this court ruling in a way, a double standard? If Trump is not allowed to block someone, as it is a violation of the 1st Amendment then, shouldn't twitter be unable to say, ban Benjamin Carl (Sargon of Akkad) given that he was also a public figure (ran for MP with UKIP)? If we now consider social media to be a public forum, even if owned by private companies than, shouldn't article 230 be amended to eliminate the potential to censor certain protected speech or people? I'm personally of the opinion that the big tech companies have abused article 230 to selectively censor certain discourse and an amendment is well overdue. Trump is the government (in his capacity as President) The first amendment protects you from the government, not from companies | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15725 Posts
On July 10 2019 06:16 Destructicon wrote: I saw this news piece earlier today and wanted to start a discussion on it. https://www.theverge.com/2019/7/9/20687521/donald-trump-president-twitter-blocking-appeals-ruling?fbclid=IwAR11abql0rDYJUsjuz3iwJBBZncld6wqg9s-KD-nt2sOKDP2STtbmQSsiVs The gist of it is. 1. Trump created his twitter account before becoming POTUS. 2. Trump blocked some people on twitter. 3. Last year a has ruled that blocking them is a violation of the 1st Amendment as he is a public figure and, his tweeting is the equivalent of creating a public forum and everybody should have the right to participate in it. 4. The White House appealed the decision but today the appeal court defended the lower court interpretation. I am bringing this up as I think there are some weird implications here. Basically the court is saying that blocking people is the equivalent of denying them free speech. Yet, twitter is allowed under Article 230 (The Internet Decency Act) to itself censor certain speech and/or ban certain people based on what it defines as hate speech, despite this being protected under the 1st Amendment. Isn't this court ruling in a way, a double standard? If Trump is not allowed to block someone, as it is a violation of the 1st Amendment then, shouldn't twitter be unable to say, ban Benjamin Carl (Sargon of Akkad) given that he was also a public figure (ran for MP with UKIP)? If we now consider social media to be a public forum, even if owned by private companies than, shouldn't article 230 be amended to eliminate the potential to censor certain protected speech or people? I'm personally of the opinion that the big tech companies have abused article 230 to selectively censor certain discourse and an amendment is well overdue. Trump works for us. He is beneath us, just like all of our senators and congressmen are. As described above, we have specific rules surrounding politicians to make sure they remember they work for us and that they are in no way above us, not even slightly. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18843 Posts
| ||
|
KwarK
United States43373 Posts
Are politicians entitled to the Convention Hall at the Dulles Airport Hilton? Can people be denied access to the Convention Hall at the Dulles Airport Hilton? Should the Convention Hall at the Dulles Airport Hilton be required to serve everyone? and If the government rents the Convention Hall at the Dulles Airport Hilton to hold a public forum then should the government be able to restrict access to the public forum from members of the public? | ||
|
iamthedave
England2814 Posts
On July 10 2019 06:16 Destructicon wrote: I saw this news piece earlier today and wanted to start a discussion on it. https://www.theverge.com/2019/7/9/20687521/donald-trump-president-twitter-blocking-appeals-ruling?fbclid=IwAR11abql0rDYJUsjuz3iwJBBZncld6wqg9s-KD-nt2sOKDP2STtbmQSsiVs The gist of it is. 1. Trump created his twitter account before becoming POTUS. 2. Trump blocked some people on twitter. 3. Last year a has ruled that blocking them is a violation of the 1st Amendment as he is a public figure and, his tweeting is the equivalent of creating a public forum and everybody should have the right to participate in it. 4. The White House appealed the decision but today the appeal court defended the lower court interpretation. I am bringing this up as I think there are some weird implications here. Basically the court is saying that blocking people is the equivalent of denying them free speech. Yet, twitter is allowed under Article 230 (The Internet Decency Act) to itself censor certain speech and/or ban certain people based on what it defines as hate speech, despite this being protected under the 1st Amendment. Isn't this court ruling in a way, a double standard? If Trump is not allowed to block someone, as it is a violation of the 1st Amendment then, shouldn't twitter be unable to say, ban Benjamin Carl (Sargon of Akkad) given that he was also a public figure (ran for MP with UKIP)? If we now consider social media to be a public forum, even if owned by private companies than, shouldn't article 230 be amended to eliminate the potential to censor certain protected speech or people? I'm personally of the opinion that the big tech companies have abused article 230 to selectively censor certain discourse and an amendment is well overdue. Trump made this inevitable by using his twitter as an unofficial (and far more important) arm of the government.communication apparatus. | ||
|
Falling
Canada11381 Posts
I see no reason to radically overhaul it when we could just go back to the original formulation as expressed in the US and try that again. The more I think about how they formulated the problem the more genius I think it is. IP is a limited monopoly. "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors…the exclusive Right to their…Writings" Emphasis on limited. Just go back to 14 years default IP and an additional 14 years IF you renew. By default it goes into the public domain otherwise. 14-28 years is tons of time to make profit from your ideas and then everyone else can build on your ideas and go from there. Incentive to create, but you don't have corporate dragons sitting on IP for generations, long after the original creators are dead. | ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
9011 Posts
On July 10 2019 08:52 Falling wrote: re: IP I see no reason to radically overhaul it when we could just go back to the original formulation as expressed in the US and try that again. The more I think about how they formulated the problem the more genius I think it is. IP is a limited monopoly. "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors…the exclusive Right to their…Writings" Emphasis on limited. Just go back to 14 years default IP and an additional 14 years IF you renew. By default it goes into the public domain otherwise. 14-28 years is tons of time to make profit from your ideas and then everyone else can build on your ideas and go from there. Incentive to create, but you don't have corporate dragons sitting on IP for generations, long after the original creators are dead. My biggest issue with the current IP laws as an inventor, is that these massive corpos patent every fucking idea that they can think of and do nothing with it, or see an idea somewhere and they patent it. Then when someone comes out with something similar that seems pretty popular or has a possibility of making money, they sue them for infringement and then bring the product to market and make more bank. Same with sitting on web addresses. If you don't bring a relatively simple idea to market or publish a website and have traffic, then you forfeit the domain after a set period of time. IP trolls are the worst of the bunch by far though. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23524 Posts
On July 10 2019 08:52 Falling wrote: re: IP I see no reason to radically overhaul it when we could just go back to the original formulation as expressed in the US and try that again. The more I think about how they formulated the problem the more genius I think it is. IP is a limited monopoly. "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors…the exclusive Right to their…Writings" Emphasis on limited. Just go back to 14 years default IP and an additional 14 years IF you renew. By default it goes into the public domain otherwise. 14-28 years is tons of time to make profit from your ideas and then everyone else can build on your ideas and go from there. Incentive to create, but you don't have corporate dragons sitting on IP for generations, long after the original creators are dead. Why/how do you think we went from that to what we have now and what is preventing us from changing it back tomorrow (since it's such an obviously [this is sincere, it's clearly better] better method than what we have currently)? | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
A couple of years ago, I was interviewing a former senior White House official when the name Jeffrey Epstein came up. Unaware of my personal history with Epstein, this person assured me that the New York financier was no serious harm to anyone. He was a good guy. A charming guy. Useful, too. He knew a lot of rich Arabs, including the crown prince of Saudi Arabia, and, further, he had clever ideas about creating bond issues for them. “OK, so he has a girl problem,” this person threw on, almost as an afterthought. Epstein’s name, I was told, had been raised by the Trump transition team when Alexander Acosta, the former U.S. attorney in Miami who’d infamously cut Epstein a non-prosecution plea deal back in 2007, was being interviewed for the job of labor secretary. The plea deal put a hard stop to a separate federal investigation of alleged sex crimes with minors and trafficking. “Is the Epstein case going to cause a problem [for confirmation hearings]?” Acosta had been asked. Acosta had explained, breezily, apparently, that back in the day he’d had just one meeting on the Epstein case. He’d cut the non-prosecution deal with one of Epstein’s attorneys because he had “been told” to back off, that Epstein was above his pay grade. “I was told Epstein ‘belonged to intelligence’ and to leave it alone,” he told his interviewers in the Trump transition, who evidently thought that was a sufficient answer and went ahead and hired Acosta. (The Labor Department had no comment when asked about this.) And so, it seemed—until the news of Epstein’s arrest on Saturday for allegedly trafficking minors—thus continuing a pattern of blatant exceptionalism that surrounded him, and his social and business nexus. For almost two decades, for some nebulous reason, whether to do with ties to foreign intelligence, his billions of dollars, or his social connections, Epstein, whose alleged sexual sickness and horrific assaults on women without means or ability to protect themselves is well-known in his circle, remained untouchable. Read the rest here. | ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
9011 Posts
On July 10 2019 09:08 GreenHorizons wrote: Why/how do you think we went from that to what we have now and what is preventing us from changing it back tomorrow (since it's such an obviously [this is sincere, it's clearly better] better method than what we have currently)? People exploited the system and we don't care enough to change/enforce it. It's really that simple. IP only comes up in terms of other nations (China) stealing it and making knock-offs and not paying royalties. On July 10 2019 09:21 xDaunt wrote: So yesterday we were talking about Epstein connections and the ridiculous plea deal that he got 10 years ago. Trump's labor secretary, Alexander Acosta, came up given that he's the one that negotiated the plea deal with Epstein. Of course, the obvious stink here is that Acosta is somehow dirty or compromised for giving Epstein such a deal. It turns out that Acosta has his own story to tell, which goes in a much darker direction: Read the rest here. What exactly are you saying here? I'm confused to what you are wanting a discussion about. Is it that he was let loose to terrorize young girls/women and no one tried to bring him in? Or because trump was accused of having something to do with him, when it was "deep state" protecting epstein this whole time and trump couldn't go after him? Did he try to and was told not to? | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23524 Posts
On July 10 2019 09:24 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: People exploited the system and we don't care enough to change/enforce it. Who exploited the system and who doesn't care to change it? | ||
| ||
