|
On October 03 2013 23:48 MoltkeWarding wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2013 23:26 Acritter wrote:On October 03 2013 23:24 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 03 2013 23:20 Acritter wrote:On October 03 2013 23:14 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 03 2013 23:06 Acritter wrote:On October 03 2013 23:03 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 03 2013 22:59 Acritter wrote:On October 03 2013 22:53 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 03 2013 22:41 hypercube wrote:
[quote]
If we start to think of large segments of society as 'plebs', people we have nothing in common with we're fucked.
The problem with embracing self serving corruption is that it stops you from forming wide alliances. How are you going to stand up against well organized, well connected and wealthy interest groups if you are unwilling to consider anyone else's interest but your own? Thing is, if you put up his way then you just stop believing in democracy at all. This ultra-liberal thought has an extraordinarily restricted and individualistic notion of interest. It sees your interest as how much money you get and that's basically it. As if one could not support unemployment benefit without being unemployed, just because he prefers living in a society that gives a safety net to people who lose their job, as if one could not care for the education of the children of his country even if he has no children, etc etc etc... No, it's a bit more than that. Someone who purely believes in personal self-interest stops believing in the very idea of society. If all that matters is what you personally get out of something, then of course the other members of your society don't matter at all outside of what they can directly provide to you. The closest to community that such a person can achieve is rank tribalism. Looking back at classical literature, I would have thought we'd moved past this mindset thousands of years ago. I think we can agree that our regretted Margaret Tatcher had medieval ideas then  No, no, not at all. There were plenty of community-oriented ideas in those times. The Catholic Church in particular supported the idea of brotherhood between... well, between Catholic Christians, but at least it was supporting a sort of commonality between nations, even if it was so they could all paint crosses on their armor and go kill Muslims. Yes but the idea that it's the society's duty to provide the most vulnerable with enough not to starve, and not the free willing charity of some religious organization is very recent. Tatcher's idea was that the poor can fuck themselves unless someone is willing to help them. That's medieval. As is Ron Paul, for example, saying that the education and the healthcare of the poor should be taken in charge by charities and churches and not by the State. I haven't figured out if he was serious. Well, then, you may as well have called her thinking Renaissance-era. The idea of government caring for the poor is industrial or modern-era. You really like exactitude yeah? I'm not sure that describing someone's ideas as "Renaissance mindset" is as efficient as "medieval mindset" to underline how archaic they are. Which was my point. Heh, I suppose. But really, if you want to underline how archaic those sorts of anti-welfare mindsets are, just point to the Roman Empire. They had welfare nearly two thousand years ago. The capital point is that a misunderstanding of historical institutions merely reinforces the prejudices of the present. In the manorial Middle Ages, the majority of peasants as well as artisans were exposed to a greater extent of corporate identity and collective life than today, with their attendant benefits and duties. That exchange of benefits and duties though was generally not towards the state, and were of a more personal than a bureaucratic nature. Of the two, between modern statism or medieval forms of manorialism, it is difficult to discern which is hated more by classical liberals. Tocqueville foresaw that in the democratic ages, people would more willing to accept the direct tutelary power of a singular supreme authority, under which all men are set in equal standing, rather than a more moderate submission to the intermediary hierarchies interpoised between the state and the individual. The authoritarian principle is innate to democratic desires, providing the authority remains bureaucratic rather than personal. We have now acceded to such traditions in democratic life, that most people cannot even imagine life under any other arrangement.
I assume you're referring to guilds with the corporate identity and collective life? The life of a serf, on the other hand, was slavery as opposed to collective life, and the nobility was far from collectively arranged.
Classical liberals definitely hated manorialism more, given that it was far more contemporary. Even in the time of Locke, landownership was a major concern, and it definitely shows in his writing.
Authority is just a side-effect of large communities, and if you concur with Hobbes, a decided benefit over the state of nature. Whenever one authority is removed, another will return in time, given basic principles of power. It's far from unique to democracy.
On October 03 2013 23:49 screamingpalm wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2013 22:59 Acritter wrote:
No, it's a bit more than that. Someone who purely believes in personal self-interest stops believing in the very idea of society. If all that matters is what you personally get out of something, then of course the other members of your society don't matter at all outside of what they can directly provide to you. The closest to community that such a person can achieve is rank tribalism. Looking back at classical literature, I would have thought we'd moved past this mindset thousands of years ago.
As you would disagree with the description of community in medieval times, I too must disagree with this assessment of tribalism. In fact, of all forms of community, the "Natural Living Arrangement" of the "Tiyoshpaye Way" as the Lakota Sioux calls it, is anything but self-serving and even a foreign concept and antithesis to such philosophy, for example. This government shutdown reminds me of something a Native American said once on a forum I used to visit (though I have no delusion of breaking the addiction): "It isn’t so much “the world who would benefit by more of Her Human Children recovering the integrity of their Organic Function, though She sure would appreciate that, it is those inmates of the “civilization” CONtraption regaining their free wild Natural Estate who would really feel its mutually beneficial effects."
Tribalism doesn't mean "a tribe does it." Romeo and Juliet has a better picture of tribalism than what you cited.
|
Actually, screamingpalm highlights the basic problem of ethical inflation. Because we hold one set of actions to be virtuous when performed on a few people, we cannot but increase that virtue when we extend those actions to apply to everyone. Yet this is not so, when we recall the old dilemma of the Son denouncing his Father which is taken by Cicero from a Greek moralist:
"Again, suppose a father were robbing temples or making underground passages to the treasury, should a son inform the officers of it?"
"Nay; that were a crime; rather should he defend his father, in case he were indicted."
"Aye, verily; but it is to our country's interest to have citizens who are loyal to their parents."
i.e. Familial piety is a more immediate, and therefore necessary social virtue than civic piety. A son turning against his father is a higher crime than the father betraying the state.
|
United States24682 Posts
On 'Obamacare' vs 'Affordable Care Act'...
I believe when coverage started for this law, President Obama's administration was referring to it as the ACA whereas opponents of the bill were referring to it as Obamacare to be disrespectful. Obama's administration quickly embraced the term Obamacare and made it an acceptable term to take away the power of others to attack the credibility of the law by calling it Obamacare, sort of like how the n word was normalized in an attempt to reduce its impact.
|
I assume you're referring to guilds with the corporate identity and collective life? The life of a serf, on the other hand, was slavery as opposed to collective life, and the nobility was far from collectively arranged.
Classical liberals definitely hated manorialism more, given that it was far more contemporary. Even in the time of Locke, landownership was a major concern, and it definitely shows in his writing.
Authority is just a side-effect of large communities, and if you concur with Hobbes, a decided benefit over the state of nature. Whenever one authority is removed, another will return in time, given basic principles of power. It's far from unique to democracy.
Serfdom was not slavery, however the rhetorical embellishments of the Enlightenment might have it.
Re: Authority as an effect of size, this is implied in the softening measure of the Feudal system; authority by delegation and therefore greater personal contact between the everyman and the lawgiver. Democratic societies in the modern form (here it is important to distinguish them from ancient city-states) tend toward agglomeration, because deference to the wisdom of the multitude is not commonly regarded as a state of mental or physical servitude.
|
On October 04 2013 00:07 MoltkeWarding wrote:Actually, screamingpalm highlights the basic problem of ethical inflation. Because we hold one set of actions to be virtuous when performed on a few people, we cannot but increase that virtue when we extend those actions to apply to everyone. Yet this is not so, when we recall the old dilemma of the Son denouncing his Father which is taken by Cicero from a Greek moralist: Show nested quote +"Again, suppose a father were robbing temples or making underground passages to the treasury, should a son inform the officers of it?"
"Nay; that were a crime; rather should he defend his father, in case he were indicted."
"Aye, verily; but it is to our country's interest to have citizens who are loyal to their parents." i.e. Familial piety is a more immediate, and therefore necessary social virtue than civic piety. A son turning against his father is a higher crime than the father betraying the state.
You're begging the question. All your statement has done is declare, rather than to prove.
On October 04 2013 00:11 MoltkeWarding wrote:Show nested quote +
I assume you're referring to guilds with the corporate identity and collective life? The life of a serf, on the other hand, was slavery as opposed to collective life, and the nobility was far from collectively arranged.
Classical liberals definitely hated manorialism more, given that it was far more contemporary. Even in the time of Locke, landownership was a major concern, and it definitely shows in his writing.
Authority is just a side-effect of large communities, and if you concur with Hobbes, a decided benefit over the state of nature. Whenever one authority is removed, another will return in time, given basic principles of power. It's far from unique to democracy.
Serfdom was not slavery, however the rhetorical embellishments of the Enlightenment might have it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serfdom
Serfdom is the status of peasants under feudalism, specifically relating to manorialism. It was a condition of bondage or modified slavery which developed primarily during the High Middle Ages in Europe and lasted in some countries until the mid-19th century.
Serfdom is slavery.
Your edited point is well made.
|
On October 04 2013 00:08 micronesia wrote:
On 'Obamacare' vs 'Affordable Care Act'...
I believe when coverage started for this law, President Obama's administration was referring to it as the ACA whereas opponents of the bill were referring to it as Obamacare to be disrespectful. Obama's administration quickly embraced the term Obamacare and made it an acceptable term to take away the power of others to attack the credibility of the law by calling it Obamacare, sort of like how the n word was normalized in an attempt to reduce its impact.
I see. An interesting attempt to reduce the potential damage, though if polls are any indication people are not necessarily siding with the Reps, but definitely are not approving of the whole Partisan bickering and that uncertainty more or less is working more for the Republicans than Democrats. For now at least.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_and_democrats_health_care_plan-1130.html
|
Ok I was wildly cynical, but hey sometimes when you take ideas to their extremes you get the best discussion!
To qualify a few statements:
By the "self interest" bit, what I mean is that due to this, politicans (or whoever is incharge) will tend to go for a more populist approach which people see as being awesome rather than making an unpopular but more beneficial decision. It's not always a bad thing, loads of awesome things have come about because someone wanted to be top dog at whatever they do.
Lets face it, most of us only work because the money lets us buy nice things.
With regards to "plebs", I refer to the odd situation where people in UK can make decent money from the state by sitting around shitting out retarded babies than they do working and holding down a job. But obviously repealing these things has a tendency to be spun negatively, and if that portion gets big enough, then you are really in the shitter.
Welfare is fine, free health care and free education is great. Of course it will be abused, and usually it is. A&E in the UK is mostly filled with well people (shit that I'm sure people in the US just suck up and deal with) or people who don't want to look after their relatives anymore. The great thing, is that if you are really sick (cancer, trauma, etc.) you will get shit done for you without having to resort to manufacturing meth to pay for chemo.
edit: It luckily happens that most "good deeds" for others help you directly or indirectly.
edit2: Oh yeah the other bit was my notion that in the East people will just come up and offer a bribe, and everyone knows whats going on, in the West people will hide the bribe, and people still know whats going on.
|
You're begging the question. All your statement has done is declare, rather than to prove.
And what am I supposed to prove? You were the one placing the ethical statement, whereas I was merely stating the opposing consideration. I largely concur with Tocqueville's assessment in "Of Individuals in Democratic Countries" about how democracy changes and encourages this process which you are so enthusiastic in endorsing.
Serfdom is slavery.
Sure, but only if you distort the meaning of slavery, and sever the semantic tradition of that word so that it bears no resemblance to what has traditionally qualified as "slavery," which was the power of absolute law in the hands of one man in relation to another. Feudal Lords did not have that power over their tenants, their demands and extractions were restricted by a higher law, and their duties and obligations were conferred by the same. (I think it's important to recall the early-medieval foundations of serfdom, when serfdom was an arrangement many landless peasants entered into voluntarily.)
|
On October 04 2013 00:08 micronesia wrote:
On 'Obamacare' vs 'Affordable Care Act'...
I believe when coverage started for this law, President Obama's administration was referring to it as the ACA whereas opponents of the bill were referring to it as Obamacare to be disrespectful. Obama's administration quickly embraced the term Obamacare and made it an acceptable term to take away the power of others to attack the credibility of the law by calling it Obamacare, sort of like how the n word was normalized in an attempt to reduce its impact.
I guess then people should stop using the term Bush tax cuts, and Hillarycare.
The whole things was just an attempt to make anyone who disagress with Obama to be racist. People calling Obama Obama, instead of the president, was because they were trying to strip him of his title for racist reasons. People only didn't agree with Obama because they were racist. The rodeo clown who wore masks of presidents is racist because he wore one of Obama. These scandals are only giving weight because people are racist. Saying the word welfare or chicago is racist. It's simple shamming language used by leftists to try and cut off any discussion on a topic by making it seem morally reprehensible to even question it. Alinksy tacits at its finest.
Why they think it's racist has to do with how leftist apply opinions in their life, and it's called ego investment. Normal people think things, and can have their minds changed. Leftist apply morality to all their opinions and have it define them as a (moral) person, so any attack on that opinion is considered an attack on the person and against morality. This is why any subject, Fast and Furious, Benghazi, Obamacare, the words angry or welfare, are all attacks not on the idea or law, but on the person, and since Obama is half black, the only reason people would do such things in a leftists mind is because of racism. This is why abortion is considered an attack on women
http://www.ijreview.com/2013/05/52663-msnbc-hosts-white-supremacy-racism-are-only-reasons-why-people-care-about-obamas-irs-scandal/
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/msnbcs-toure-to-panel-romney-engaging-in-the-niggerization-of-obama/
As for the shutdown, we now see government officials applying more man power trying to close of public, and sometimes even privately owned spaces from the public. This is entirely political and the fault of the president. He is trying to turn public sentiment away from the person who is at fault (himself) against the republicans in the house. There have been 17 shutdowns in the US over 5 presidents, and all the presidents negotiated with the house. The house is the most powerful body in the federal government, and for good reason. The presidency is the weakest, also for good reason. Given precedent, and the way private property is trying to be blockaded, it is most certainly the president who is being political and trying to use the shutdown for political motives. We see the president telling the speaker he won't negotiate, which is interesting because everyone says they want compromise, and the house has more leverage as given by law, it should be the president that gives in, not the house.
People saying Republicans should just give in to Obamacare ignores how often Democrats persue for decades policy until is succeeds. Gun control and illegalization has failed for decades, yet Democrats still try to change the law. National Healthcare has been a dream for decades, and you don't think Democrats just gave up after Hillarycare failed. Why should Republicans give up just because they don't have the votes to repeal it? Obamacare is different from most laws, because it requires continuous funding, and all funding must be appropriated by the House. Since the House is run by Republicans, they have no obligation to fund it, and good reason to not fund it. It appears people think of things in two steps 1: Democrats pass law, that's the way it is now. 2: Republicans pass a law, Democrats should fight it, then go back to step one.
|
United States24682 Posts
I don't think republicans should 'just let it drop' regarding the ACA, but I don't think they should force us into a shutdown which hurts me as a tactic to try and get what they want changed in the ACA. I don't have much memory of the most recent shutdowns because I was young, so I am going to judge this situation as I see it.
The republicans said they won't agree to a budget unless it includes more changes to the ACA.
The president said he won't use the threat of a government shutdown as a reason to change the ACA.
The republicans won't agree to a clean budget or continuing resolution.
We are in a partial government shutdown. This shutdown is hurting me directly. I will not blame the president for this problem in particular. I had no problem with the republicans providing resistance to the ACA in general, but I am now forced to side with the President's administration on the current state of affairs, even if I don't particularly want to. If the republicans want me to have sympathy for them, they need to allow a clean budget through so I can get on with my life.
|
On October 04 2013 00:13 Acritter wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 00:07 MoltkeWarding wrote:Actually, screamingpalm highlights the basic problem of ethical inflation. Because we hold one set of actions to be virtuous when performed on a few people, we cannot but increase that virtue when we extend those actions to apply to everyone. Yet this is not so, when we recall the old dilemma of the Son denouncing his Father which is taken by Cicero from a Greek moralist: "Again, suppose a father were robbing temples or making underground passages to the treasury, should a son inform the officers of it?"
"Nay; that were a crime; rather should he defend his father, in case he were indicted."
"Aye, verily; but it is to our country's interest to have citizens who are loyal to their parents." i.e. Familial piety is a more immediate, and therefore necessary social virtue than civic piety. A son turning against his father is a higher crime than the father betraying the state. You're begging the question. All your statement has done is declare, rather than to prove. Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 00:11 MoltkeWarding wrote:
I assume you're referring to guilds with the corporate identity and collective life? The life of a serf, on the other hand, was slavery as opposed to collective life, and the nobility was far from collectively arranged.
Classical liberals definitely hated manorialism more, given that it was far more contemporary. Even in the time of Locke, landownership was a major concern, and it definitely shows in his writing.
Authority is just a side-effect of large communities, and if you concur with Hobbes, a decided benefit over the state of nature. Whenever one authority is removed, another will return in time, given basic principles of power. It's far from unique to democracy.
Serfdom was not slavery, however the rhetorical embellishments of the Enlightenment might have it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SerfdomShow nested quote +Serfdom is the status of peasants under feudalism, specifically relating to manorialism. It was a condition of bondage or modified slavery which developed primarily during the High Middle Ages in Europe and lasted in some countries until the mid-19th century.
Serfdom is slavery. Your edited point is well made.
Serfdom, although it of course had many varations, is not the same as slavery. This quote is perfect example as to why wikipedia is not a proper source.
|
On October 03 2013 22:55 dUTtrOACh wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2013 22:46 Acritter wrote:On October 03 2013 22:45 dUTtrOACh wrote:
There's a lot of stuff in Article 1 on the powers and responsibilities of congress, too.
I don't think it requires a Constitutional amendment to enact "Obamacare" (which is a stupid name, by the way - I wish they'd stop using it). All it takes right now, is a budget to be approved. It has been subjected to everything else and passed. The Republicans (not all of them) are just being dicks, and their ability to stonewall government to this extent is a joke. Call it ACA. That's its name. Only, none of the media coverage calls it the ACA, probably because acronyms are so ambiguous. I wish the media would stop calling it 'Obamacare'. It brings up a lot of partisan discussion that really has very little place in what should be a more neutral topic: Healthcare for everyone.
But, it's not healthcare for everyone. It's insurance for everyone. There's a major difference, and the government is trying to pull the wool over our eyes. Those words are not synonymous.
|
On October 04 2013 01:17 SnK-Arcbound wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 00:08 micronesia wrote:
On 'Obamacare' vs 'Affordable Care Act'...
I believe when coverage started for this law, President Obama's administration was referring to it as the ACA whereas opponents of the bill were referring to it as Obamacare to be disrespectful. Obama's administration quickly embraced the term Obamacare and made it an acceptable term to take away the power of others to attack the credibility of the law by calling it Obamacare, sort of like how the n word was normalized in an attempt to reduce its impact. I guess then people should stop using the term Bush tax cuts, and Hillarycare. The whole things was just an attempt to make anyone who disagress with Obama to be racist. People calling Obama Obama, instead of the president, was because they were trying to strip him of his title for racist reasons. People only didn't agree with Obama because they were racist. The rodeo clown who wore masks of presidents is racist because he wore one of Obama. These scandals are only giving weight because people are racist. Saying the word welfare or chicago is racist. It's simple shamming language used by leftists to try and cut off any discussion on a topic by making it seem morally reprehensible to even question it. Alinksy tacits at its finest. Why they think it's racist has to do with how leftist apply opinions in their life, and it's called ego investment. Normal people think things, and can have their minds changed. Leftist apply morality to all their opinions and have it define them as a (moral) person, so any attack on that opinion is considered an attack on the person and against morality. This is why any subject, Fast and Furious, Benghazi, Obamacare, the words angry or welfare, are all attacks not on the idea or law, but on the person, and since Obama is half black, the only reason people would do such things in a leftists mind is because of racism. This is why abortion is considered an attack on women http://www.ijreview.com/2013/05/52663-msnbc-hosts-white-supremacy-racism-are-only-reasons-why-people-care-about-obamas-irs-scandal/http://www.mediaite.com/tv/msnbcs-toure-to-panel-romney-engaging-in-the-niggerization-of-obama/As for the shutdown, we now see government officials applying more man power trying to close of public, and sometimes even privately owned spaces from the public. This is entirely political and the fault of the president. He is trying to turn public sentiment away from the person who is at fault (himself) against the republicans in the house. There have been 17 shutdowns in the US over 5 presidents, and all the presidents negotiated with the house. The house is the most powerful body in the federal government, and for good reason. The presidency is the weakest, also for good reason. Given precedent, and the way private property is trying to be blockaded, it is most certainly the president who is being political and trying to use the shutdown for political motives. We see the president telling the speaker he won't negotiate, which is interesting because everyone says they want compromise, and the house has more leverage as given by law, it should be the president that gives in, not the house. People saying Republicans should just give in to Obamacare ignores how often Democrats persue for decades policy until is succeeds. Gun control and illegalization has failed for decades, yet Democrats still try to change the law. National Healthcare has been a dream for decades, and you don't think Democrats just gave up after Hillarycare failed. Why should Republicans give up just because they don't have the votes to repeal it? Obamacare is different from most laws, because it requires continuous funding, and all funding must be appropriated by the House. Since the House is run by Republicans, they have no obligation to fund it, and good reason to not fund it. It appears people think of things in two steps 1: Democrats pass law, that's the way it is now. 2: Republicans pass a law, Democrats should fight it, then go back to step one.
lol
|
On October 04 2013 02:22 PassiveAce wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 01:17 SnK-Arcbound wrote:On October 04 2013 00:08 micronesia wrote:
On 'Obamacare' vs 'Affordable Care Act'...
I believe when coverage started for this law, President Obama's administration was referring to it as the ACA whereas opponents of the bill were referring to it as Obamacare to be disrespectful. Obama's administration quickly embraced the term Obamacare and made it an acceptable term to take away the power of others to attack the credibility of the law by calling it Obamacare, sort of like how the n word was normalized in an attempt to reduce its impact. I guess then people should stop using the term Bush tax cuts, and Hillarycare. The whole things was just an attempt to make anyone who disagress with Obama to be racist. People calling Obama Obama, instead of the president, was because they were trying to strip him of his title for racist reasons. People only didn't agree with Obama because they were racist. The rodeo clown who wore masks of presidents is racist because he wore one of Obama. These scandals are only giving weight because people are racist. Saying the word welfare or chicago is racist. It's simple shamming language used by leftists to try and cut off any discussion on a topic by making it seem morally reprehensible to even question it. Alinksy tacits at its finest. Why they think it's racist has to do with how leftist apply opinions in their life, and it's called ego investment. Normal people think things, and can have their minds changed. Leftist apply morality to all their opinions and have it define them as a (moral) person, so any attack on that opinion is considered an attack on the person and against morality. This is why any subject, Fast and Furious, Benghazi, Obamacare, the words angry or welfare, are all attacks not on the idea or law, but on the person, and since Obama is half black, the only reason people would do such things in a leftists mind is because of racism. This is why abortion is considered an attack on women http://www.ijreview.com/2013/05/52663-msnbc-hosts-white-supremacy-racism-are-only-reasons-why-people-care-about-obamas-irs-scandal/http://www.mediaite.com/tv/msnbcs-toure-to-panel-romney-engaging-in-the-niggerization-of-obama/As for the shutdown, we now see government officials applying more man power trying to close of public, and sometimes even privately owned spaces from the public. This is entirely political and the fault of the president. He is trying to turn public sentiment away from the person who is at fault (himself) against the republicans in the house. There have been 17 shutdowns in the US over 5 presidents, and all the presidents negotiated with the house. The house is the most powerful body in the federal government, and for good reason. The presidency is the weakest, also for good reason. Given precedent, and the way private property is trying to be blockaded, it is most certainly the president who is being political and trying to use the shutdown for political motives. We see the president telling the speaker he won't negotiate, which is interesting because everyone says they want compromise, and the house has more leverage as given by law, it should be the president that gives in, not the house. People saying Republicans should just give in to Obamacare ignores how often Democrats persue for decades policy until is succeeds. Gun control and illegalization has failed for decades, yet Democrats still try to change the law. National Healthcare has been a dream for decades, and you don't think Democrats just gave up after Hillarycare failed. Why should Republicans give up just because they don't have the votes to repeal it? Obamacare is different from most laws, because it requires continuous funding, and all funding must be appropriated by the House. Since the House is run by Republicans, they have no obligation to fund it, and good reason to not fund it. It appears people think of things in two steps 1: Democrats pass law, that's the way it is now. 2: Republicans pass a law, Democrats should fight it, then go back to step one. lol
Lol indeed. New nominee for the "Breivik of the future"- award emerges.
edit: Jokes aside, it's nice to see Glenn Beck joining teamliquid.
|
|
|
probably a coincidence, Washington D.C. is actually a pretty rough town but afaik gunfire near the federal buildings is very unusual but I doubt its unheard of.
|
I think it's worthy of its own thread, so i'll just spoiler my previous post.
|
On October 03 2013 22:42 Acritter wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2013 22:33 Djzapz wrote:On October 03 2013 22:18 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 03 2013 22:02 MoonfireSpam wrote:On October 03 2013 21:55 hypercube wrote:On October 03 2013 21:19 Talin wrote:On October 03 2013 20:05 weekendracer wrote:
It's not reasonable to continue to spend yourself into insurmountable debt. If your wife/husband ran up 100% of your income in debt on credit cards on intangible items, what would you do? Have a discussion and come to a 'consensus' with her, or cut up the damn cards and declare bankruptcy or work for years to pay off the debt you incurred? Oh give me a break. That is the kind of rationalization you use to convince conservatives that are actually reasonable that you're all after the same thing, but it really makes one wonder how come even they are still buying it. How come it's always healthcare, social care or education that's number one priority when you want to "do away with it all"? Doesn't the "all" also include the rather insane military spending and money being spent in a "war" on terror or drugs or countless other examples of US government spending that serve no practical purpose and actually hurt the population at large? There's a lot more fat to be trimmed there. That (no longer) fringe element of the Republican party really only uses their economic principles - which are themselves questionable - very selectively, and ONLY when it's serving their underlying ideology. An extremely radical ideology that has very little to do with genuine concern for the economy, and a lot more to do with a purely dogmatic worldview. Thankfully, people don't seem to actually want to go back to "how things were" and live by the 19th century laws in the 21st century. Also it's high time people figured out how to tax big corporations. Apple is sitting on more than 100bn in cash, paying more wouldn't even hurt their ability to invest. This is true for EU countries too BTW. Would be nice, but will never happen. UK are trying to crack down on taxing the fairly well off individual though. Why can't people just embrance "honest self serving corruption" instead of pretending it's all in the best interests of the majority. It's seriously not like those tax dollars will go to anything useful other than winning votes of a shit load of plebs because they get more free shit. Most will probably end up in pockets of various civil servants who don't make a difference anyway. You mean that public education, healthcare, public transportation, infrastructures, unemployment benefits are "free stuff" or is it just that it's cool to be cynical and delusional while embracing the right wing doxa that money spent by the state is just meant to buy votes (which is an obscenity by the way). I got, as a kid, a high quality free academic and musical education which allowed me to become a good musician and, hopefully, a fairly well educated person, and to make a good career. So tell me, did I get "free stuff"? Cause that was all paid by the State. I heard recently a Republican MP talking about public education as "goodies" with which the Democrats wanted to buy vote. The fact that someone can call the education of children "goodies" seems so fucking stupid that it left me completely speechless. So if you think the same, I would love to get an explanation. It's a thing in the US, I think, where a lot of cocky old rich guys look down at public education because their $400,000 ivy league degree paid for by their parents is a source of pride for them. On October 03 2013 22:30 Acritter wrote:On October 03 2013 22:18 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 03 2013 22:02 MoonfireSpam wrote:On October 03 2013 21:55 hypercube wrote:On October 03 2013 21:19 Talin wrote:On October 03 2013 20:05 weekendracer wrote:
It's not reasonable to continue to spend yourself into insurmountable debt. If your wife/husband ran up 100% of your income in debt on credit cards on intangible items, what would you do? Have a discussion and come to a 'consensus' with her, or cut up the damn cards and declare bankruptcy or work for years to pay off the debt you incurred? Oh give me a break. That is the kind of rationalization you use to convince conservatives that are actually reasonable that you're all after the same thing, but it really makes one wonder how come even they are still buying it. How come it's always healthcare, social care or education that's number one priority when you want to "do away with it all"? Doesn't the "all" also include the rather insane military spending and money being spent in a "war" on terror or drugs or countless other examples of US government spending that serve no practical purpose and actually hurt the population at large? There's a lot more fat to be trimmed there. That (no longer) fringe element of the Republican party really only uses their economic principles - which are themselves questionable - very selectively, and ONLY when it's serving their underlying ideology. An extremely radical ideology that has very little to do with genuine concern for the economy, and a lot more to do with a purely dogmatic worldview. Thankfully, people don't seem to actually want to go back to "how things were" and live by the 19th century laws in the 21st century. Also it's high time people figured out how to tax big corporations. Apple is sitting on more than 100bn in cash, paying more wouldn't even hurt their ability to invest. This is true for EU countries too BTW. Would be nice, but will never happen. UK are trying to crack down on taxing the fairly well off individual though. Why can't people just embrance "honest self serving corruption" instead of pretending it's all in the best interests of the majority. It's seriously not like those tax dollars will go to anything useful other than winning votes of a shit load of plebs because they get more free shit. Most will probably end up in pockets of various civil servants who don't make a difference anyway. You mean that public education, healthcare, public transportation, infrastructures, unemployment benefits are "free stuff" or is it just that it's cool to be cynical and delusional while embracing the right wing doxa that money spent by the state is just meant to buy votes (which is an obscenity by the way). I got, as a kid, a high quality free academic and musical education which allowed me to become a good musician and, hopefully, a fairly well educated person, and to make a good career. So tell me, did I get "free stuff"? Cause that was all paid by the State. I heard recently a Republican MP talking about public education as "goodies" with which the Democrats wanted to buy vote. The fact that someone can call the education of children "goodies" seems so fucking stupid that it left me completely speechless. So if you think the same, I would love to get an explanation. I don't think MP is the right word, given that I assume you're referring to the American political party. We don't have any members of parliament at all; we have congressmen. Congress is your parliament and the congressmen are technically members of parliament  . While perhaps not technically correct, it's still at least kind of correct Precise terminology is fairly important, which is why I'm a stickler for these kinds of things. The US has a longstanding issue with education between the elitism you stated and the other side of the coin, which is the culture of poverty which rejects education as being uppity. The end result is that even though there is a sizable middle class which values education (albeit overwhelmingly for the sake of profit, rather than viewing knowledge and hence the true as an intrinsic good), there isn't much support for education as a public good. Then again, the concept of public goods isn't very well-known in American culture in the first place, so... Show nested quote +On October 03 2013 22:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 03 2013 22:30 Acritter wrote:On October 03 2013 22:18 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 03 2013 22:02 MoonfireSpam wrote:On October 03 2013 21:55 hypercube wrote:On October 03 2013 21:19 Talin wrote:On October 03 2013 20:05 weekendracer wrote:
It's not reasonable to continue to spend yourself into insurmountable debt. If your wife/husband ran up 100% of your income in debt on credit cards on intangible items, what would you do? Have a discussion and come to a 'consensus' with her, or cut up the damn cards and declare bankruptcy or work for years to pay off the debt you incurred? Oh give me a break. That is the kind of rationalization you use to convince conservatives that are actually reasonable that you're all after the same thing, but it really makes one wonder how come even they are still buying it. How come it's always healthcare, social care or education that's number one priority when you want to "do away with it all"? Doesn't the "all" also include the rather insane military spending and money being spent in a "war" on terror or drugs or countless other examples of US government spending that serve no practical purpose and actually hurt the population at large? There's a lot more fat to be trimmed there. That (no longer) fringe element of the Republican party really only uses their economic principles - which are themselves questionable - very selectively, and ONLY when it's serving their underlying ideology. An extremely radical ideology that has very little to do with genuine concern for the economy, and a lot more to do with a purely dogmatic worldview. Thankfully, people don't seem to actually want to go back to "how things were" and live by the 19th century laws in the 21st century. Also it's high time people figured out how to tax big corporations. Apple is sitting on more than 100bn in cash, paying more wouldn't even hurt their ability to invest. This is true for EU countries too BTW. Would be nice, but will never happen. UK are trying to crack down on taxing the fairly well off individual though. Why can't people just embrance "honest self serving corruption" instead of pretending it's all in the best interests of the majority. It's seriously not like those tax dollars will go to anything useful other than winning votes of a shit load of plebs because they get more free shit. Most will probably end up in pockets of various civil servants who don't make a difference anyway. You mean that public education, healthcare, public transportation, infrastructures, unemployment benefits are "free stuff" or is it just that it's cool to be cynical and delusional while embracing the right wing doxa that money spent by the state is just meant to buy votes (which is an obscenity by the way). I got, as a kid, a high quality free academic and musical education which allowed me to become a good musician and, hopefully, a fairly well educated person, and to make a good career. So tell me, did I get "free stuff"? Cause that was all paid by the State. I heard recently a Republican MP talking about public education as "goodies" with which the Democrats wanted to buy vote. The fact that someone can call the education of children "goodies" seems so fucking stupid that it left me completely speechless. So if you think the same, I would love to get an explanation. I don't think MP is the right word, given that I assume you're referring to the American political party. We don't have any members of parliament at all; we have congressmen. And the Congress is your ... ? It's our Congress. That's the name for it. You can say that it's technically a parliament, and you would be significantly wrong, because the relationship between each individual state and our federal government is a bit different than in other countries. I don't believe you get arguments about States' Rights in most democratic republics.
Fair enough, good sir. Good post.
|
Boehner Tells Republicans He Won’t Let the Nation Default
Some reason for hope. This is about the debt ceiling rather than the current crisis, but there is a majority in the House for ending things - it's about whether those in charge are willing to have that intra-Republican fight, and this a bit of a sign that they are moving in that direction.
|
On October 04 2013 01:33 Silvanel wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 00:13 Acritter wrote:On October 04 2013 00:07 MoltkeWarding wrote:Actually, screamingpalm highlights the basic problem of ethical inflation. Because we hold one set of actions to be virtuous when performed on a few people, we cannot but increase that virtue when we extend those actions to apply to everyone. Yet this is not so, when we recall the old dilemma of the Son denouncing his Father which is taken by Cicero from a Greek moralist: "Again, suppose a father were robbing temples or making underground passages to the treasury, should a son inform the officers of it?"
"Nay; that were a crime; rather should he defend his father, in case he were indicted."
"Aye, verily; but it is to our country's interest to have citizens who are loyal to their parents." i.e. Familial piety is a more immediate, and therefore necessary social virtue than civic piety. A son turning against his father is a higher crime than the father betraying the state. You're begging the question. All your statement has done is declare, rather than to prove. On October 04 2013 00:11 MoltkeWarding wrote:
I assume you're referring to guilds with the corporate identity and collective life? The life of a serf, on the other hand, was slavery as opposed to collective life, and the nobility was far from collectively arranged.
Classical liberals definitely hated manorialism more, given that it was far more contemporary. Even in the time of Locke, landownership was a major concern, and it definitely shows in his writing.
Authority is just a side-effect of large communities, and if you concur with Hobbes, a decided benefit over the state of nature. Whenever one authority is removed, another will return in time, given basic principles of power. It's far from unique to democracy.
Serfdom was not slavery, however the rhetorical embellishments of the Enlightenment might have it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SerfdomSerfdom is the status of peasants under feudalism, specifically relating to manorialism. It was a condition of bondage or modified slavery which developed primarily during the High Middle Ages in Europe and lasted in some countries until the mid-19th century.
Serfdom is slavery. Your edited point is well made. Serfdom, although it of course had many varations, is not the same as slavery. This quote is perfect example as to why wikipedia is not a proper source.
I remember when I was back in school in the 90s and they never allowed us to use wiki as a source. I guess forum posters are just too lazy to use anything else to try and make a point because all they do is type in a word and viola.. wiki has something for them. I really hope high schools and universities haven't changed their stance on such sources, but something tells me that might not be the case. -_-
On October 04 2013 03:29 Grettin wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Bit offtopic. You'd think it's somewhat related though? Looking at the location and such. ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/8ih2KeO.png) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/JwGIHss.png) + Show Spoiler +
God dammit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BVrAa2ZIQAE44xD.jpg)
