|
United States22883 Posts
On April 16 2009 13:30 TanGeng wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2009 09:41 cz wrote:On April 15 2009 16:07 Tyrant wrote:If you were against the Iraq War, you were un-American, unpatriotic, hated America, and should just leave. If you don't like the fact that you lost a fair election now, you are a patriot defending American virtues etc. Get over it, right-wing, you lost the election. What Obama is doing is nowhere near as bad as what Bush did, but yet people who said that Bush might be wrong were un-American, hated America, etc. Very strong hypocrisy from that camp. I get the impression that your digestive tract is contiguous with a pipe leading from your mouth to your favorite news source's anus. Trying to compartmentalize everyone into a quaint little box is juvenile and shows how little you know about people. You come across as very insecure suggesting that the party you don't agree with should, "get over it" -- followed by a statement to reassure yourself that you're on the winning side, but having the balls to end with a lecture of hypocrisy is the icing on the cake. If you really believe what you said then I'd venture to say that you're -- at best -- no better in your thinking than those you've aimed to demonize. Free thinking will always trump blind faith and ignorant partisanship. Impressive, you wrote two full paragraphs attacking my person without responding to my statements at all. That Obama has won is not a win for anyone except for a select few. For the anti-war crowd, Obama is not doing a complete draw down of Iraq, and he's going to surge into Afghanistan. He's talked about escalation in Pakistan and managed to bungle the interaction with Russia. For the Universal Health, Obama will find it difficult to deliver on the promises of universal health care. It's unlikely to happen since people won't want to pay for it and Obama's already borrowing trillions for the bailout. The American people also don't go for socialism, so Obama, the pragmatist will not go there. For the civil libertarians, Obama's following Bush's lead for asserting presidential power and state secrets privileges. If anyone thought that Obama was going to bring a new era of accountability to Washington, they were dead wrong. For the drug legalization crowd, Obama's still got the FBI overriding state law concerning marijuana and other drugs. They're still out there destroying people's lives over peaceful and non-destructive activities. The next generation's not going to be happy with Obama. He's going to mortgage their future some more. But we do have a few winners! Wall Street Financial companies got lots of money. I'm sure everyone can be happy about that! I disagree on a lot of these. Obama's influence on the DEA is minimal, he's concerned about other things. The raid stoppages were simply a byproduct of budget cuts.
Russia has issues of its own, but he's handling Iran well. Afghanistan is going to be a failure, but I think it's a political calculation more than anything else, and one that most potential presidents would have made.
He is going to get universal health care. He's got another year and a half left before he needs to start worrying about the next election, and he's trying to make fundamental changes to the US, which are only available during times of major crisis. You can disagree with the moves he's making or dislike the amount of regulatory policy being implemented (which is still a far cry from most W. European states,) but you have to acknowledge, politically, that now is the best possible time to get things done and it looks like he's going for it, in a major way.
|
United States22883 Posts
On April 16 2009 14:21 Choros wrote:
If the founding fathers were around today they would be stockpiling weapons and ammunition as well. It does not have to be a violent revolution but the powers that be may make it so.
Thomas Jefferson said that liberty and freedom can only be preserved by the periodic shedding of the blood of patriots and tyrants
This is ridiculous, and no. Read some of Jefferson's work; the statement in the Declaration that you're talking about has nothing to do with further violence. It's about elections.
I'm rereading that post and it has to be sarcasm. I've never seen Choros post sarcasm before, but I've also never seen him post something that dumb.
|
On April 15 2009 23:15 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2009 22:04 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:On April 15 2009 21:17 Jibba wrote:On April 15 2009 21:03 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:On April 15 2009 21:00 Jibba wrote:On April 15 2009 15:51 Caller wrote:On April 15 2009 15:40 Railz wrote:On April 15 2009 15:33 Savio wrote:On April 15 2009 15:25 Railz wrote:
-
If these conservatives spent half the time protesting their new government as they did actually reading what is Constitutional and what isn't, we actually might get a decent third party.  Sooo...you are saying conservatives read the constitution too much and should just get out there and protest something? No I am saying, these self-labeled, conservatives (old values) need to actually understand what the values stated in the constitution are. They're not protesting the correct issues. What the government does with Taxes, is by the Constitution, by-and-by legal and these 'tea party' activists just look plain city. I worded it wrong, I meant if the Conservatives actually spent half the time reading the constitution as they did protesting -- ... I just swapped positions. Woops. Fun fact: The income tax was not originally in the Constitution. As a matter of fact, it's ratification was somewhat contentious. Fun fact: The Constitution was a pro-slavery document and women originally could not vote. As a matter of fact, the abolishment of slavery was somewhat contentious. The Sixteenth Amendment exists. Get over it. True. It does exist. And your point is well taken, Jibba, the constitution -- rather, the creation of the united states -- is no example of pure goodness (welcome to human history, you and I would both say, right?). But this does nothing to address the question of whether or not the 16th should exist. (that, of course, is a much larger and more fundmantal debate). Redistributive policies are always contentious and make people upset, but I'd wager that more people care about the services provided by the federal government than the tax they'd have to pay. In fact, without those services being provided I can't imagine the type of country we'd be living in. And I don't mean publicized services like welfare programs, that actually take up a small portion of the budget. I mean historically things like funding WWI/II, roads, polio immunizations, etc. It could be that humanity, at large, is not yet ready (if ever..) for true self-governance. If that is the case we can only hope that the stupid masses will succesfully (somehow) determine the smart individuals to rule them. But come on man, surely you can imagine a society of individuals who act collectively and, at the same time, without coercion. I'm not a person that thinks the masses are stupid and need to be coerced. I have respect for the vast majority of people, even if I get annoyed at times. That said, I think direct democracy is just a few short steps away from anarchy and I can't imagine a society of individuals who act collectively without coercion. I don't think you mean to say collectively, because I agree with true liberalism that collectivism is dangerous and inevitably does involve coercion. Humanity will never be ready for self governance, until we destroy 99% of the population and are left with one village. It's not a matter of being smart or dumb, it's because for the most part humans are rational actors in Bentham's sense of utilitarianism, not Mill's, and in that game every party will lose. We don't act that way all the time and I don't think it's right, but I do think it's how most people operate. The point of my post was really that government has a place in the world because markets are exploitable and slow, and there needs to be something to fund that governance. The reason we first implemented a regular income tax (not to fund war) was with the Revenue Act of 1894, because we were dropping tariffs and they needed to offset the costs. This is just going to lead to a super derailed discussion, and I hope it doesn't. D:
1. Please tell me how your first paragraph does not contradict itself. The way I am reading it, you think, first: I don't think the masses need to be coerced. second: I can't imagine a society without the masses being coerced. To me this seems to be a blatant contradiction. Am I reading it wrong?
2. Definition of collectively: "of, relating to, or being a group of individuals". When I write that a a society of individuals can act collectively I have in mind things like participating in the market --together.
3. I'm with you on collectivism being dangerous.
4. On your point about human beings being ready for self-governance: Once again, this seems to contradict your first sentence, "I'm not a person that thinks the masses are stupid and need to be coerced." It is, in fact, a matter of being stupid. If it is true, as you seem to think it is, that "every party will lose" then only stupid individuals would continue participating in that process. Also, I don't find it useful at all to throw out a statement like "Bentham's sense of utilitarianism" without providing at least a sentence of two of analysis. If you don't tell me WHY you think Bentham is right and Mill is wrong there isn't much more to discuss.
5. You say that "We don't act that way all the time and I don't think it's right" -- Why don't you think its right? WHAT do you think makes something right or wrong?
6. "The point of my post was really that government has a place in the world because markets are exploitable and slow" (a) Aren't government's as well? (b) in what way exploitable? (c) slow? Compared to what?
7. "This is just going to lead to a super derailed discussion, and I hope it doesn't" -- I don't know what you think is "on the line." So don't answer anything you don't want to. But, I won't take you to be saying anything meaningful unless you can clarify my #1 about you contradicting yourself.
|
On April 16 2009 14:32 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2009 14:21 Choros wrote:
If the founding fathers were around today they would be stockpiling weapons and ammunition as well. It does not have to be a violent revolution but the powers that be may make it so.
Thomas Jefferson said that liberty and freedom can only be preserved by the periodic shedding of the blood of patriots and tyrants This is ridiculous, and no. Read some of Jefferson's work; the statement in the Declaration that you're talking about has nothing to do with further violence. It's about elections.
How can it be about elections when both parties do the same thing? Obama was elected with the hope he would stop the Bush policies, he would unwind the patriot act etc. What did he do? exactly the opposite. He has continued Bush policies and thus is a liar and a traitor.
If you vote in someone like Ron Paul as an independent candidate perhaps then yes you can achieve this through elections. But the failure of Obama is symbolic of the failure of the entire political system. Do you believe things would be significantly different under the Republicans?
Your democratic system has been hijacked, perhaps it can be taken pack peacefully and I am hopeful that this will happen but if every candidate stands for the same thing and those who do not are denied the opportunity to stand for election (as was denied Ron Paul), and the candidates you can choose between all stand directly against the will of the public how can you say this is democracy?
After all that has happened, and all that is occurring today how can you still have faith in elections?
The people need to say 'hey this is a democracy and we demand you do as we the people desire" and if those in power refuse then taking back democracy by force may be the only option left.
|
Shouldn't we give obama more than 85 days?
|
United States22883 Posts
1. It's not a matter of smart or dumb. It's a matter of human nature, and coercion is not really taking place. If you think people act out of the greater good for society, rather than their personal self interest, I simply have to disagree with you. It's not because people are bad or uneducated, it's because people are people, and the good and ivy league schooled do the same calculations.
2. For the sake of a political discussion, I think you could find a better word than 'collectively' because of the negative connotations it has with collectivism.
5. I'm not going to lay out a treatise on Kantian ethics for you. If you can understand that I favor them, you should be able to figure out the reasons. There's a place for utilitarianism as well, but I don't think it should be used as much.
6. The exploitation occurs in many of the ways that governments are forced to regulate. Anti-trust, labor, racism, etc. That should be incredibly obvious and agreeable, even to a hardcore Hayekian. I don't know any group, outside of anarchists, who think government has no role refereeing.
The effects of market drives usually take place over decades; governments in half that or less. Air bags are one example, AIDS research is an even better one. Many of the drugs sold by big pharmas do not make profit and would not be produced without government incentive, because they don't affect enough people. Do we simply let people with outlier diseases wither away, because the market for their cures isn't ample enough? Should every research dollar be pointed towards cancer alone, because it's by far the deadliest disease?
I'm not going to stick around and give a 101 lecture, I'm going to sleep. I don't think anything in this post is even that contentious. These are very basic usages of government that I'm talking about, not massive redistributive policies or anything.
|
On April 16 2009 14:52 Jibba wrote:
5. I'm not going to lay out a treatise on Kantian ethics for you. If you can understand that I favor them, you should be able to figure out the reasons. There's a place for utilitarianism as well, but I don't think it should be used as much.
Your a Kantian (I laugh to myself). What a tool.
Seriously though, this statement, "If you can understand that I favor them, you should be able to figure out the reasons" doesn't make any sense. People are interested in Kant's ethics for a variety of reasons. Some think his moral system is logically correct. Some could care less about his logic and are more interseted in the fact that he explictilty stated his goal of saving altruism, freedom and faith. So I have no idea why you like Kant -- other than you getting owned by some profs in college.
|
On April 16 2009 14:52 BalliSLife wrote:
Shouldn't we give obama more than 85 days?
No, he is taking away our rights!!!! rabble!! rabble! rabble!!
|
On April 16 2009 14:25 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2009 13:30 TanGeng wrote:On April 16 2009 09:41 cz wrote:On April 15 2009 16:07 Tyrant wrote:If you were against the Iraq War, you were un-American, unpatriotic, hated America, and should just leave. If you don't like the fact that you lost a fair election now, you are a patriot defending American virtues etc. Get over it, right-wing, you lost the election. What Obama is doing is nowhere near as bad as what Bush did, but yet people who said that Bush might be wrong were un-American, hated America, etc. Very strong hypocrisy from that camp. I get the impression that your digestive tract is contiguous with a pipe leading from your mouth to your favorite news source's anus. Trying to compartmentalize everyone into a quaint little box is juvenile and shows how little you know about people. You come across as very insecure suggesting that the party you don't agree with should, "get over it" -- followed by a statement to reassure yourself that you're on the winning side, but having the balls to end with a lecture of hypocrisy is the icing on the cake. If you really believe what you said then I'd venture to say that you're -- at best -- no better in your thinking than those you've aimed to demonize. Free thinking will always trump blind faith and ignorant partisanship. Impressive, you wrote two full paragraphs attacking my person without responding to my statements at all. That Obama has won is not a win for anyone except for a select few. For the anti-war crowd, Obama is not doing a complete draw down of Iraq, and he's going to surge into Afghanistan. He's talked about escalation in Pakistan and managed to bungle the interaction with Russia. For the Universal Health, Obama will find it difficult to deliver on the promises of universal health care. It's unlikely to happen since people won't want to pay for it and Obama's already borrowing trillions for the bailout. The American people also don't go for socialism, so Obama, the pragmatist will not go there. For the civil libertarians, Obama's following Bush's lead for asserting presidential power and state secrets privileges. If anyone thought that Obama was going to bring a new era of accountability to Washington, they were dead wrong. For the drug legalization crowd, Obama's still got the FBI overriding state law concerning marijuana and other drugs. They're still out there destroying people's lives over peaceful and non-destructive activities. The next generation's not going to be happy with Obama. He's going to mortgage their future some more. But we do have a few winners! Wall Street Financial companies got lots of money. I'm sure everyone can be happy about that! I disagree on a lot of these. Obama's influence on the DEA is minimal, he's concerned about other things. The raid stoppages were simply a byproduct of budget cuts. Russia has issues of its own, but he's handling Iran well. Afghanistan is going to be a failure, but I think it's a political calculation more than anything else, and one that most potential presidents would have made. He is going to get universal health care. He's got another year and a half left before he needs to start worrying about the next election, and he's trying to make fundamental changes to the US, which are only available during times of major crisis. You can disagree with the moves he's making or dislike the amount of regulatory policy being implemented (which is still a far cry from most W. European states,) but you have to acknowledge, politically, that now is the best possible time to get things done and it looks like he's going for it, in a major way.
It may sound confusing but I agree with both your post and the one which you quoted. Obama's continuance of the patriot act and state secrets is a sham and is unacceptable. The financial bailouts are economically incompetent Geinther is a criminal and should be in jail (he is guilty of serious tax evasion summing into the millions) trillions of tax payer dollars are being given to the same bankers who created the crisis for no economic reason whatsoever it can only be described as theft of epic proportions.
In terms of foreign policy Russia has its own issues sure but Obama should have cancelled the missile defense shield which is one of the most important causes of friction but he has not. In terms of Iran so far so good but it must be made clear that Israel cannot attack Iran and if they do the United States should go to war against Israel in the interest of peace, a war with Iran could lead to ww3 and that is not an over exaggeration but on this count we will have to wait and see.
The draw down in Iraq and the escalation of Afghanistan is exactly what he said he would do before the election and he is doing this now so that is not a big deal.
It is the traitorous undemocratic con job of the financial bailouts and the destruction of freedom of speech, freedom from unlimited survalence and the destruction of the right for due process that is the real cause for alarm and needs to be addressed by whatever means necessary.
|
United States22883 Posts
On April 16 2009 14:40 Choros wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2009 14:32 Jibba wrote:On April 16 2009 14:21 Choros wrote:
If the founding fathers were around today they would be stockpiling weapons and ammunition as well. It does not have to be a violent revolution but the powers that be may make it so.
Thomas Jefferson said that liberty and freedom can only be preserved by the periodic shedding of the blood of patriots and tyrants This is ridiculous, and no. Read some of Jefferson's work; the statement in the Declaration that you're talking about has nothing to do with further violence. It's about elections. How can it be about elections when both parties do the same thing? Obama was elected with the hope he would stop the Bush policies, he would unwind the patriot act etc. What did he do? exactly the opposite. He has continued Bush policies and thus is a liar and a traitor. If you vote in someone like Ron Paul as an independent candidate perhaps then yes you can achieve this through elections. But the failure of Obama is symbolic of the failure of the entire political system. Do you believe things would be significantly different under the Republicans? Your democratic system has been hijacked, perhaps it can be taken pack peacefully and I am hopeful that this will happen but if every candidate stands for the same thing and those who do not are denied the opportunity to stand for election (as was denied Ron Paul), and the candidates you can choose between all stand directly against the will of the public how can you say this is democracy? After all that has happened, and all that is occurring today how can you still have faith in elections? The people need to say 'hey this is a democracy and we demand you do as we the people desire" and if those in power refuse then taking back democracy by force may be the only option left.
Single member districts winner-take-all elections -> 2 party system, that tend to align close to each other. If you want to call a Constitutional Convention, go ahead. If I find the time between all the real papers I'm writing, I'll give you the explanation of why this happens on the institutional level. But it always does, and it's not just a matter of the presidency - it's the entire system. The internet or public campaign financing might have some impact and allow for a stronger third party, but for the most part it's always the same.
Is it a problem? Sure. Have you come up with a better solution? Should we allow a parliamentary system where NO unknowns get elected and true crazies must be considered in order to form a coalition of power? I suggest you not raise up in arms until you've got a solution for the way government and elections can be better structured, and considered all the ancillary consequences of those changes. Incidentally, one of the papers I'm working on is modification of war speech to omit violence, and 'arms' is a primary example.
|
On April 16 2009 15:05 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2009 14:40 Choros wrote:On April 16 2009 14:32 Jibba wrote:On April 16 2009 14:21 Choros wrote:
If the founding fathers were around today they would be stockpiling weapons and ammunition as well. It does not have to be a violent revolution but the powers that be may make it so.
Thomas Jefferson said that liberty and freedom can only be preserved by the periodic shedding of the blood of patriots and tyrants This is ridiculous, and no. Read some of Jefferson's work; the statement in the Declaration that you're talking about has nothing to do with further violence. It's about elections. How can it be about elections when both parties do the same thing? Obama was elected with the hope he would stop the Bush policies, he would unwind the patriot act etc. What did he do? exactly the opposite. He has continued Bush policies and thus is a liar and a traitor. If you vote in someone like Ron Paul as an independent candidate perhaps then yes you can achieve this through elections. But the failure of Obama is symbolic of the failure of the entire political system. Do you believe things would be significantly different under the Republicans? Your democratic system has been hijacked, perhaps it can be taken pack peacefully and I am hopeful that this will happen but if every candidate stands for the same thing and those who do not are denied the opportunity to stand for election (as was denied Ron Paul), and the candidates you can choose between all stand directly against the will of the public how can you say this is democracy? After all that has happened, and all that is occurring today how can you still have faith in elections? The people need to say 'hey this is a democracy and we demand you do as we the people desire" and if those in power refuse then taking back democracy by force may be the only option left. Single member districts winner-take-all elections -> 2 party system, that tend to align close to each other. If you want to call a Constitutional Convention, go ahead. If I find the time between all the real papers I'm writing, I'll give you the explanation of why this happens on the institutional level. But it always does, and it's not just a matter of the presidency - it's the entire system. The internet or public campaign financing might have some impact and allow for a stronger third party, but for the most part it's always the same. Is it a problem? Sure. Have you come up with a better solution? Should we allow a parliamentary system where NO unknowns get elected and true crazies must be considered in order to form a coalition of power? I suggest you not raise up in arms until you've got a solution for the way government and elections can be better structured, and considered all the ancillary consequences of those changes. Incidentally, one of the papers I'm working on is modification of war speech to omit violence, and 'arms' is a primary example.
Jibba, in the post before this you said you were going to sleep. But then you posted another response. Does that qualify as a lie? At the least you are being very misleading. Bad Kantian. Bad.
|
United States22883 Posts
On April 16 2009 14:58 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2009 14:52 Jibba wrote:
5. I'm not going to lay out a treatise on Kantian ethics for you. If you can understand that I favor them, you should be able to figure out the reasons. There's a place for utilitarianism as well, but I don't think it should be used as much.
Your a Kantian (I laugh to myself). What a tool. Seriously though, this statement, "If you can understand that I favor them, you should be able to figure out the reasons" doesn't make any sense. People are interested in Kant's ethics for a variety of reasons. Some think his moral system is logically correct. Some could care less about his logic and are more interseted in the fact that he explictilty stated his goal of saving altruism, freedom and faith. So I have no idea why you like Kant -- other than you getting owned by some profs in college. Right, and the 6,000+ pages of non-class material behind me from Rand, Hayek, Lowi, Rawls, Marx and others mean nothing. Fuck off.
On April 16 2009 15:07 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:
Jibba, in the post before this you said you were going to sleep. But then you posted another response. Does that qualify as a lie? At the least you are being very misleading. Bad Kantian. Bad.
Yeah, nice try. Luckily I'm pretty well acquainted with the intarwebz.
|
On April 16 2009 15:10 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2009 14:58 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:On April 16 2009 14:52 Jibba wrote:
5. I'm not going to lay out a treatise on Kantian ethics for you. If you can understand that I favor them, you should be able to figure out the reasons. There's a place for utilitarianism as well, but I don't think it should be used as much.
Your a Kantian (I laugh to myself). What a tool. Seriously though, this statement, "If you can understand that I favor them, you should be able to figure out the reasons" doesn't make any sense. People are interested in Kant's ethics for a variety of reasons. Some think his moral system is logically correct. Some could care less about his logic and are more interseted in the fact that he explictilty stated his goal of saving altruism, freedom and faith. So I have no idea why you like Kant -- other than you getting owned by some profs in college. Right, and the 6,000+ pages of non-class material behind me from Rand, Hayek, Lowi, Rawls, Marx and others mean nothing. Fuck off.
Lulz. Touchy subject?
|
On April 16 2009 15:10 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2009 14:58 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:On April 16 2009 14:52 Jibba wrote:
5. I'm not going to lay out a treatise on Kantian ethics for you. If you can understand that I favor them, you should be able to figure out the reasons. There's a place for utilitarianism as well, but I don't think it should be used as much.
Your a Kantian (I laugh to myself). What a tool. Seriously though, this statement, "If you can understand that I favor them, you should be able to figure out the reasons" doesn't make any sense. People are interested in Kant's ethics for a variety of reasons. Some think his moral system is logically correct. Some could care less about his logic and are more interseted in the fact that he explictilty stated his goal of saving altruism, freedom and faith. So I have no idea why you like Kant -- other than you getting owned by some profs in college. Right, and the 6,000+ pages of non-class material behind me from Rand, Hayek, Lowi, Rawls, Marx and others mean nothing. Fuck off. Show nested quote +On April 16 2009 15:07 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:
Jibba, in the post before this you said you were going to sleep. But then you posted another response. Does that qualify as a lie? At the least you are being very misleading. Bad Kantian. Bad. Yeah, nice try. Luckily I'm pretty well acquainted with the intarwebz.
Go snuggle up in bed, Jibba. BTW, are you in grad school right now? If so, what department and what school?
|
United States22883 Posts
On April 16 2009 15:11 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2009 15:10 Jibba wrote:On April 16 2009 14:58 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:On April 16 2009 14:52 Jibba wrote:
5. I'm not going to lay out a treatise on Kantian ethics for you. If you can understand that I favor them, you should be able to figure out the reasons. There's a place for utilitarianism as well, but I don't think it should be used as much.
Your a Kantian (I laugh to myself). What a tool. Seriously though, this statement, "If you can understand that I favor them, you should be able to figure out the reasons" doesn't make any sense. People are interested in Kant's ethics for a variety of reasons. Some think his moral system is logically correct. Some could care less about his logic and are more interseted in the fact that he explictilty stated his goal of saving altruism, freedom and faith. So I have no idea why you like Kant -- other than you getting owned by some profs in college. Right, and the 6,000+ pages of non-class material behind me from Rand, Hayek, Lowi, Rawls, Marx and others mean nothing. Fuck off. Lulz. Touchy subject?
I'm still waiting on your explanation of a collectively working society free of coercion. I think history favors my assessment of human nature much more. And it is nature, not nurture.
Go snuggle up in bed, Jibba. Will do. I'll be dreaming of your reply.
|
On April 16 2009 15:17 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2009 15:11 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:On April 16 2009 15:10 Jibba wrote:On April 16 2009 14:58 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:On April 16 2009 14:52 Jibba wrote:
5. I'm not going to lay out a treatise on Kantian ethics for you. If you can understand that I favor them, you should be able to figure out the reasons. There's a place for utilitarianism as well, but I don't think it should be used as much.
Your a Kantian (I laugh to myself). What a tool. Seriously though, this statement, "If you can understand that I favor them, you should be able to figure out the reasons" doesn't make any sense. People are interested in Kant's ethics for a variety of reasons. Some think his moral system is logically correct. Some could care less about his logic and are more interseted in the fact that he explictilty stated his goal of saving altruism, freedom and faith. So I have no idea why you like Kant -- other than you getting owned by some profs in college. Right, and the 6,000+ pages of non-class material behind me from Rand, Hayek, Lowi, Rawls, Marx and others mean nothing. Fuck off. Lulz. Touchy subject? I'm still waiting on your explanation of a collectively working society free of coercion. I think history favors my assessment of human nature much more. And it is nature, not nurture.
Rational self interest.
Repeat: BTW, are you in grad school right now? If so, what department and what school?
|
On April 16 2009 15:05 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2009 14:40 Choros wrote:On April 16 2009 14:32 Jibba wrote:On April 16 2009 14:21 Choros wrote:
If the founding fathers were around today they would be stockpiling weapons and ammunition as well. It does not have to be a violent revolution but the powers that be may make it so.
Thomas Jefferson said that liberty and freedom can only be preserved by the periodic shedding of the blood of patriots and tyrants This is ridiculous, and no. Read some of Jefferson's work; the statement in the Declaration that you're talking about has nothing to do with further violence. It's about elections. How can it be about elections when both parties do the same thing? Obama was elected with the hope he would stop the Bush policies, he would unwind the patriot act etc. What did he do? exactly the opposite. He has continued Bush policies and thus is a liar and a traitor. If you vote in someone like Ron Paul as an independent candidate perhaps then yes you can achieve this through elections. But the failure of Obama is symbolic of the failure of the entire political system. Do you believe things would be significantly different under the Republicans? Your democratic system has been hijacked, perhaps it can be taken pack peacefully and I am hopeful that this will happen but if every candidate stands for the same thing and those who do not are denied the opportunity to stand for election (as was denied Ron Paul), and the candidates you can choose between all stand directly against the will of the public how can you say this is democracy? After all that has happened, and all that is occurring today how can you still have faith in elections? The people need to say 'hey this is a democracy and we demand you do as we the people desire" and if those in power refuse then taking back democracy by force may be the only option left. Single member districts winner-take-all elections -> 2 party system, that tend to align close to each other. If you want to call a Constitutional Convention, go ahead. If I find the time between all the real papers I'm writing, I'll give you the explanation of why this happens on the institutional level. But it always does, and it's not just a matter of the presidency - it's the entire system. The internet or public campaign financing might have some impact and allow for a stronger third party, but for the most part it's always the same. Is it a problem? Sure. Have you come up with a better solution? Should we allow a parliamentary system where NO unknowns get elected and true crazies must be considered in order to form a coalition of power? I suggest you not raise up in arms until you've got a solution for the way government and elections can be better structured, and considered all the ancillary consequences of those changes. Incidentally, one of the papers I'm working on is modification of war speech to omit violence, and 'arms' is a primary example.
I know that democracies tend to end up being a two party system. I have studied Athenian democracy and that turned into a two party system as individuals group together so they have more power relative to the other side until you end up with two parties. That does not necessarily have to be a problem.
You do not need to restructure the political system, and you do not need to change the constitution. All you need to do is enforce the constitution, and arest those who violate it (like Bush etc, and Gonzalez who passed a law saying that the president does not need to follow the constitution for example) and charge these traitors with treason. If the constitution was enforced none of these problems would be happening today.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
one of the more interesting features about the common understanding of property and markets is that the key question is seen as one of freedom, specifically freedom from govt intervention. the understanding is that any intrusion against propertied persons is an infringement of freedom.
nevertheless, this is missing the fundamental issue at hand. property is a system of authorities, and the distribution of the authorities, which are called rights, defines the boundaries of permissive action. freedom in the system is intrinsically two calculations, whether a certain action violates a given system, and whether the system's power distributions are satisfactory. merely presenting the former would not have any normative grounding. the question of whether the freedom being transgressed, or rather, the powers and authorities being rejected, are justified.
the real issue is not really freedom, but the powers that define the boundaries of permissibility and control. case in point, just as we can easilly imagine a 'free capitalist' society that behaves ideally (by whatever ideal society), the same society could be socialist. the property scheme does not determine anything in terms of achievable social situations.
nevertheless, given a system of established and entrenched property, it is understandable that alterations in the distribution is understood as a simple transgression within the system, that is to say, a gross injustice. this is despite the redistribution originally envisioned to change the system --- the boundaries of just distribution itself. for reformist social thinkers (which you can read as socialist, as degrees of 'socialism' are invariably involved in all the relevant people), government facilitated redistribution are aimed at changing the system, indeed, to achieve justice rather than commit some crime in the established one. if they are right about the just society, then the only objection remaining are practical ones. for socialism in general, it is the practical problems that are most pressing, precisely because of the difficulties of collective action. in any case, the point is that merely criticising socialism for infringing on freedoms is at best unclear. two kinds of infringement are possible. first, the practical ones, like whether undue force is involved, and real problems generated by the practical programs designed in the name of socialism. the second is a change in the boundaries of just distribution etc, here the issue is not freedom, but justified power. it is the second question that most stress modern libertarian types. if this is accurate, then the first order of business is to drop the word freedom for justice, or justified rights.
this is just basic form. arguments not on this form are impossible to be taken seriously
on a more serious note, it has always been my understanding that the crux of the american debate around property and government is an anxiety over a traditional power structure. however, the debates are affairs of noncommunication, with the left stressing desirable social objectives, while the right focused on the "you can't do that!" objection. the reason for this is that there is no good answer. rights and established ways of doings things have their place, but so does social situations. suppose a system of rights implies no burden of a positive duty to save a drowning person, the situation would still be morally troubling, and those who do not find it so are themselves a problem. when one side is convinced that a just system of rights, ie powers, is deeply just, this is to say, not only superior to any concerns over the condition of real lives and people, but imply that these concerns are irrelevant, then appeals to these conditions will have no effect. same way with radical utilitarian types on the other side. while in the past, revolutionaries on the left can be described to be the end justifies means type, these people are not the proper representatives of the left today. even the most ardent advocates for government control are not willing to sacrifice much more than numbers and forms, a farcry from the armageddon. the concept of human rights is well respected on the left, and so is the basic reality of property rights for most.
so the breakdown of the debate occurs because the priests at the floating temple of rights are rejecting the moral relevancy of real human lives too readily. this breakdown in debate and engagement is significant to the prospect of a genuinely productive political community, productive in the sense of generating discourse that do work in the changing of minds expected of rational debate. to repair the situation, it is important for the right to recognize the seriousness of social conditions, indeed, be interested in them. (that an interest in how the rest of the world lives is the most ordinary introduction to progressive social thought is not a coincidence.) only with this interest can one begin to engage with leftist thought, in an honest manner.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On April 16 2009 15:05 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2009 14:40 Choros wrote:On April 16 2009 14:32 Jibba wrote:On April 16 2009 14:21 Choros wrote:
If the founding fathers were around today they would be stockpiling weapons and ammunition as well. It does not have to be a violent revolution but the powers that be may make it so.
Thomas Jefferson said that liberty and freedom can only be preserved by the periodic shedding of the blood of patriots and tyrants This is ridiculous, and no. Read some of Jefferson's work; the statement in the Declaration that you're talking about has nothing to do with further violence. It's about elections. How can it be about elections when both parties do the same thing? Obama was elected with the hope he would stop the Bush policies, he would unwind the patriot act etc. What did he do? exactly the opposite. He has continued Bush policies and thus is a liar and a traitor. If you vote in someone like Ron Paul as an independent candidate perhaps then yes you can achieve this through elections. But the failure of Obama is symbolic of the failure of the entire political system. Do you believe things would be significantly different under the Republicans? Your democratic system has been hijacked, perhaps it can be taken pack peacefully and I am hopeful that this will happen but if every candidate stands for the same thing and those who do not are denied the opportunity to stand for election (as was denied Ron Paul), and the candidates you can choose between all stand directly against the will of the public how can you say this is democracy? After all that has happened, and all that is occurring today how can you still have faith in elections? The people need to say 'hey this is a democracy and we demand you do as we the people desire" and if those in power refuse then taking back democracy by force may be the only option left. Single member districts winner-take-all elections -> 2 party system, that tend to align close to each other. If you want to call a Constitutional Convention, go ahead. If I find the time between all the real papers I'm writing, I'll give you the explanation of why this happens on the institutional level. But it always does, and it's not just a matter of the presidency - it's the entire system. The internet or public campaign financing might have some impact and allow for a stronger third party, but for the most part it's always the same. Is it a problem? Sure. Have you come up with a better solution? Should we allow a parliamentary system where NO unknowns get elected and true crazies must be considered in order to form a coalition of power? I suggest you not raise up in arms until you've got a solution for the way government and elections can be better structured, and considered all the ancillary consequences of those changes. Incidentally, one of the papers I'm working on is modification of war speech to omit violence, and 'arms' is a primary example.
Easy solution:
Weak central government. No power. Election doesn't matter.
|
On April 16 2009 14:40 Choros wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2009 14:32 Jibba wrote:On April 16 2009 14:21 Choros wrote:
If the founding fathers were around today they would be stockpiling weapons and ammunition as well. It does not have to be a violent revolution but the powers that be may make it so.
Thomas Jefferson said that liberty and freedom can only be preserved by the periodic shedding of the blood of patriots and tyrants This is ridiculous, and no. Read some of Jefferson's work; the statement in the Declaration that you're talking about has nothing to do with further violence. It's about elections. If you vote in someone like Ron Paul as an independent candidate perhaps then yes you can achieve this through elections. But the failure of Obama is symbolic of the failure of the entire political system.
I think you are jumping the gun here. I don't see how the political system has failed at all. It has done exactly what it was supposed to do. The people chose Obama and Obama is President. When all is said and done, we elect a person to the presidency, not a platform. Elections are about choosing a person to make decisions. We are not and never have been a democracy. We were not voting on laws or platforms. We were voting on people as is done in a republic.
Do you believe things would be significantly different under the Republicans?
No. But that is not necessarily bad. Keep reading to see why.
Your democratic system has been hijacked, perhaps it can be taken pack peacefully and I am hopeful that this will happen but if every candidate stands for the same thing and those who do not are denied the opportunity to stand for election (as was denied Ron Paul), and the candidates you can choose between all stand directly against the will of the public how can you say this is democracy?
That is what is natural and supposed to happen in a democratic republic. People talk about the 2 parties as being essentially the same as if that is proof that the system has failed, when really it is proof that political parties are still subject to the people. The parties MUST become similar because there is medium area that most Americans agree with and both parties must be there or they would fail. Would you rather have 1 party stand for what American wants while the other party tries to go against what Americans want? I don't see how that is better.
So the point I am making is that a lot of the democratic process happens BEFORE elections. The parties must change to be in line with what Americans want.
Your argument is kind of like saying that the fact that Burger King makes a quarter pounder while McDonalds makes a Big Mac is proof that the market has failed because how in the world can there be a market if we have 2 similar products? That is not a market failing, that is proof that the market is functioning correctly.
After all that has happened, and all that is occurring today how can you still have faith in elections?
I can and very easily. I can't believe anyone wouldn't. The only way elections fail is if the votes are not counted or not done correctly. There is no evidence that this was the case (even if Paul had been on ALL ballots, Obama would still be President right now...I can guarantee that).
The people need to say 'hey this is a democracy and we demand you do as we the people desire" and if those in power refuse then taking back democracy by force may be the only option left.
Or we could stick with reality and say "hey this is a republic where we choose representatives to go to government and make decisions for us. Our system counts votes correctly and we have chosen a President and government. Lets make sure he stays aware of what we generally think and feel, so he can make the best decisions he can." So protesting is good, making your voice heard is good because it keeps Obama aware of how Americans feel, but it does NOT represent a failure in the system.
Anyway, you know I am not for Obama, but I think what you wrote was ridiculous.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
