JDTAY
Half Pepperoni, All Cheese
See: How to lose the hearts and minds of the masses in three words.
Bonus points when you tell them their problems aren't the world's problems.
World News Thread (Politics,whatever)
- Thread starter Wally
- Start date
- Status
See: How to lose the hearts and minds of the masses in three words.
Bonus points when you tell them their problems aren't the world's problems.
We did... it's just that we do not feel responsibility for it...
I didn't annihilate the dodo's...
I didn't litter.
it was already broken.
rygD
Nihilistic Mystic
Looks like someone stepped in shit and tracked it all over the last few pages. Not sure why I am still checking when there are updates in this thread.
levi
Still fresh, damnit!
That is hardly surprising, since the self-proclaimed left has become extremely authoritarian.
JDTAY
Half Pepperoni, All Cheese
Hey, um, sorry for ruining this thread. Politics is what got me kicked off of GameFAQs, and I kinda went into these posts intending to get kicked off of here too, since I wasn't feeling well early yesterday.
I mean, I'm having trouble saving money for Pyra, and I even put off grocery shopping for nine days this month, because I didn't want to spend money. This current bout of depression isn't quite over yet either...
I mean, I'm having trouble saving money for Pyra, and I even put off grocery shopping for nine days this month, because I didn't want to spend money. This current bout of depression isn't quite over yet either...
rygD
Nihilistic Mystic
This money shit again? What do you have coming in every month, and what are your bills usually like. It really isn't hard to do a budget unless you have more going out for legitimate reasons than you have coming in. For starters, stop buying new games. If you can't do that you don't really want the Pyra.
Also, fist fights tend to be easier to recover from than those only with words. Additionally, you're all fucking idiots when it comes to politics.
Also, fist fights tend to be easier to recover from than those only with words. Additionally, you're all fucking idiots when it comes to politics.
Null
Snug
Best of luck, I've tried a few times to get myself banned because reasons and it hasn't happened yet.
Caine
Hardcore Member
It's not a budget problem but an issue with impulse control and inability to delay gratification ([edit]as far as I can tell from a distance[/edit]).
If we are going to discuss this again, can we please do that in the original thread. This thread is for political flame wars.
JDTAY
Half Pepperoni, All Cheese
I wanted to address this statement too, since it fits in with what I'm talking about in regards to the political disconnect between Europe and the US.
Libertarianism has always been considered right wing here. I know because I've been on and off of that bandwagon since I discovered it in the early '00s. A favorite description among big L Libertarians is "the Republicans who smoke weed".
The first part is an interview with primarily Putin (by Megan Kelly).
Interesting things:
- The plans from America to let NATO increase their spending (we now know from 2% to 4%) was already in 2017.
- Austria makes a remark of a European resentment that we can not confide in USA anymore. (because: Head of state and not signing the Kyoto protocols)
- We still have Paris
The second part is a rally against climate change, highlighting only the organizational aspect.
Interesting things:
- The movements tries to be similar to the anti-atomicwar movement in the 80ties (long term groups, highly effective)
- Climate change effects are not distributed equally. Poor countries get hit harder.
- Developing countries do not get "their" shot at economical growth. It's like when you are on top, you ban elevators and only allow ropes (but still use elevators on the top floors).
JDTAY
Half Pepperoni, All Cheese
You know, one thing I was reminded of earlier today is that people in poor autocratic countries report significantly higher levels of happiness than those in rich democracies. Makes me wonder what I'm fighting for...
I mean, one of the reasons I went to voluntaryism is that I believe democracy to be a source of unhappiness, but what if wealth and freedom themselves cause unhappiness? What do I do then?
I mean, one of the reasons I went to voluntaryism is that I believe democracy to be a source of unhappiness, but what if wealth and freedom themselves cause unhappiness? What do I do then?
They don't but if you replace spiritual happiness with those then you will be less happy.
Caine
Hardcore Member
I do not think that by themselves they cause unhappiness, but they can be a source of isolation which will greatly increase unhappiness for most people.
The absence of wealth and/or freedom is also a good way to get unhappy, but having it does not by itself make you happy (or at least not long-term).
ible
professional vim user
i've read some articles about how wages aren't tracking with productivity, the rich are getting richer, the poor can't afford healthcare and such (in the states). going all in with libertarianism means (presumably) free market capitalism, but that's been increasing CEOs' wages faster than the average person. i'm not sure how a small government is supposed to stop this, but even big governments aren't helping, since big companies foot the stumping bills.
unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness -- do we really have those if we are poor, hungry, and can't pay our medical bills?
unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness -- do we really have those if we are poor, hungry, and can't pay our medical bills?
JDTAY
Half Pepperoni, All Cheese
Not sure why you think free markets have anything to do with the cost of medical care. Medical care is the most heavily regulated industry in the US. And IIRC, less than 10% of medical bills actually end up being paid in full, forcing providers to highball their initial offers, so to speak.
I mean, the US could reduce healthcare costs quite a bit with more regulation, or reduce them to nearly nothing with complete deregulation. They should hurry up and pick a path, at the very least.
As for your last statement, it's a bit subjective. Unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness... Do we really have these if we've authorized the government to imprison us for crimes that they get to specify and to kill us if we resist said imprisonment?
I mean, the US could reduce healthcare costs quite a bit with more regulation, or reduce them to nearly nothing with complete deregulation. They should hurry up and pick a path, at the very least.
As for your last statement, it's a bit subjective. Unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness... Do we really have these if we've authorized the government to imprison us for crimes that they get to specify and to kill us if we resist said imprisonment?
ible
professional vim user
health insurance is a scam...
i'm not sure which future crimes you're worried about being imprisoned for, but that seems like a dumb excuse not to have healthcare for all right now...
i'm not sure which future crimes you're worried about being imprisoned for, but that seems like a dumb excuse not to have healthcare for all right now...
To ible:
We don't have free-market capitalism. Of particular relevance here is that we do not have free-market money: we have centrally-planned money production.
Wages stopped tracking productivity right when the central bank pushed the Nixon administration to abandon the gold-exchange standard in 1971.
Here's BLS presenting the St. Louis Fed's original research, showing wages tracking productivity before 1971.
That depends on the reason why an individual cannot afford the things he wants. If that person earned enough money to feed his family that year, but that was stolen from him, his rights have been violated. If the person cannot afford a heart-bypass procedure because he hasn't earned the resources needed for it, or didn't save up enough to buy a house adequate to the 7 children he chose to create, no rights violation has occured.
The theory of rights in use at the time the Declaration of Independence was written was exclusively of negative rights. Negative rights means no-one has the right to take away what you naturally own. I.e. your life, or your liberty and your property (the word "property" was originally included in the declaration). They were not construed as what now are being called positive rights meaning other people have to gibs you their stuff.
The "right to life" is your right to have the life you posess not be taken from you.
[doublepost=1531698697,1531697432][/doublepost]
To xnopasaranx:
And this is where communist/syndicalist anarchism falls flat on its face, economically. Hierarchy in voluntary associations (unlike hierarchy under the coercive State) is nothing but the result of specialisation. Any serious student of economics knows that specialisation in skills and productive roles is a necessary component of advanced production of goods and thus of modern society itself. The fact that someone in a group has the knowledge to operate the lathe and another has the knowledge of organizing and planning the production line is not only good but also necessary for the group to achieve productive results. You don't get upset about the hierarchy of organs in a human body, each with specialized functions, do you? The Marxist tale that the communist man will be a fisher one day and a poet the next belies the fact that to be good at an advanced subject, you need to have a competitive natural physical or mental aptitude in the prerequisites, then devote your time to specialising in it.
We don't have free-market capitalism. Of particular relevance here is that we do not have free-market money: we have centrally-planned money production.
Wages stopped tracking productivity right when the central bank pushed the Nixon administration to abandon the gold-exchange standard in 1971.
Here's BLS presenting the St. Louis Fed's original research, showing wages tracking productivity before 1971.
That depends on the reason why an individual cannot afford the things he wants. If that person earned enough money to feed his family that year, but that was stolen from him, his rights have been violated. If the person cannot afford a heart-bypass procedure because he hasn't earned the resources needed for it, or didn't save up enough to buy a house adequate to the 7 children he chose to create, no rights violation has occured.
The theory of rights in use at the time the Declaration of Independence was written was exclusively of negative rights. Negative rights means no-one has the right to take away what you naturally own. I.e. your life, or your liberty and your property (the word "property" was originally included in the declaration). They were not construed as what now are being called positive rights meaning other people have to gibs you their stuff.
The "right to life" is your right to have the life you posess not be taken from you.
[doublepost=1531698697,1531697432][/doublepost]
To xnopasaranx:
And this is where communist/syndicalist anarchism falls flat on its face, economically. Hierarchy in voluntary associations (unlike hierarchy under the coercive State) is nothing but the result of specialisation. Any serious student of economics knows that specialisation in skills and productive roles is a necessary component of advanced production of goods and thus of modern society itself. The fact that someone in a group has the knowledge to operate the lathe and another has the knowledge of organizing and planning the production line is not only good but also necessary for the group to achieve productive results. You don't get upset about the hierarchy of organs in a human body, each with specialized functions, do you? The Marxist tale that the communist man will be a fisher one day and a poet the next belies the fact that to be good at an advanced subject, you need to have a competitive natural physical or mental aptitude in the prerequisites, then devote your time to specialising in it.
You're not. You'll just achieve dying without hierarchies.
Last edited:
ible
professional vim user
it seems your vision of healthcare (that those who can't afford to pay don't deserve to live) is already close enough to what we have in the states. and while you've put a noble spin on not helping others if they are unable to pay (regarding positive and negative rights), it's not what a people following good samaritan principles would do. in a first-world country, we can take care of all our people. and in the future, maybe we can make our entire planet a first-world planet 
.
we already have great discrepancy between rich and poor; the healthcare scam in the US just exacerbates that (though of course is not the only problem driving the difference). no one is more deserving of life than another, especially not based on money (an artificial construct). you've even pointed out some important flaws in money: that it's backed by governments [faith/fiat] and not gold. (though you're welcome to put all your money into gold or bitcoin.) which means that it's completely arbitrary, who makes more money than another person.
.we already have great discrepancy between rich and poor; the healthcare scam in the US just exacerbates that (though of course is not the only problem driving the difference). no one is more deserving of life than another, especially not based on money (an artificial construct). you've even pointed out some important flaws in money: that it's backed by governments [faith/fiat] and not gold. (though you're welcome to put all your money into gold or bitcoin.) which means that it's completely arbitrary, who makes more money than another person.
JDTAY
Half Pepperoni, All Cheese
I don't think klapse was implying that anyone doesn't deserve to live. I think you might've missed the point.
Living requires labor. If you aren't doing that labor, someone else is. Not only is that in itself unfair, but under government it is enforced through violence. If I don't work to support you, I could be arrested, and if I resist that arrest, I can be killed. Which is worse, letting people die, or killing them?
Living requires labor. If you aren't doing that labor, someone else is. Not only is that in itself unfair, but under government it is enforced through violence. If I don't work to support you, I could be arrested, and if I resist that arrest, I can be killed. Which is worse, letting people die, or killing them?
- Status
