h a l f b a k e r yI CAN HAZ CROISSANTZ?
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
As we all prepare for the likelihood for the
victory of the infinitely corrupt over the
unmoveably insane, this future bestseller will
summarize how the disloyal opposition
managed to nominate one of the few people on
the planet that could lose to Hillary. A graphic
novel, of course
The disloyal opposition...
https://www.youtube...watch?v=WboggjN_G-4
" How much do you hate the ... " [normzone, Aug 11 2016]
Defining Arrogance
http://www.national...tions-went-clintons
Deducting charitable donations to yourself [theircompetitor, Aug 12 2016]
Clinton Foundation Money
http://www.factchec...oundation-money-go/
This might help. [RayfordSteele, Aug 13 2016]
To wit
http://www.washingt...03?custom_click=rss
[theircompetitor, Aug 13 2016]
Democrats looking out for the people. (Bankers are people too)
http://www.realclea...smear_campaign.html
Not sure which Democrat to believe here, but that bankruptcy law that the banks backed and Hillary signed was pure evil. [doctorremulac3, Aug 13 2016]
https://www.theguar...d-heartfelft-eulogy
[pertinax, Aug 14 2016]
If anybody's interested, here's the Libertarian party platform.
https://www.lp.org/platform
Judge it yea or nay from this, but please don't get your information from people who have no clue what they're talking about. [doctorremulac3, Aug 14 2016]
Race riots
http://hosted.ap.or...2016-08-14-17-37-31
National Guard called up for this latest one, but they're happening on a pretty regular basis now. [doctorremulac3, Aug 14 2016]
by hilly
https://en.wikipedi.../It_Takes_a_Village
what the fuss is about. [popbottle, Aug 16 2016]
Pretty much sums up my views on politics.
https://www.youtube...watch?v=Pji_IX-UacM
Great song too. Sing it next time you're at the polls. [doctorremulac3, Aug 16 2016]
the definition of insanity
https://en.wikipedi...mayors_of_Milwaukee
Milwaukee's Mayros [theircompetitor, Aug 16 2016]
Sneaky quilt pattening for communications - slave rescues
http://home2.fvcc.e...g/final/blocks.html
[not_morrison_rm, Aug 16 2016]
The Power of Progression
https://www.triumf...._of_progression.pdf
The rate of population growth has changed (shrunk), and actually for about 40 years has been fairly constant at approx 80 million per year. If that does not change, then we need to create resources to match. So see the next link. [Vernon, Aug 17 2016]
The initial problem
http://www.france24...kest-rate-ever-2016
We need to produce resources to deal with the existing population, just as much as we need to increase resources to match population growth. [Vernon, Aug 17 2016]
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Annotation:
|
| |
// A graphic novel, of course // |
|
| |
Of course ... after all, literacy isn't a noticeable characteristic of Trumpeters .... |
|
| |
I think a more accurate title would be, "It takes a Village of
Idiots" --Trump could not win the nomination by himself,
after all. |
|
| |
As a person who does not engage in party politics, I need to ask a question. Pardon my ignorance, but if the persons in question are the opposition, then how could they ever be loyal in the first place ? |
|
| |
I knew party politics was fraught with challenges, but... |
|
| |
The premise is that although the party in opposition by definition oppose the party in government, they remain loyal to the person of the Sovereign; they do not seek to depose, remove or frustrate the wishes of same, but merely to replace one disreputable rabble of greedy, venal, shiftless perfidious gits with an almost industinguishable one, but under a different leader. |
|
| |
This allows all the mobs of verminous parasites, loathsome self-serving oiks and nauseatingly hypocritical kiddie-fiddlers to take their turns in the dining car of the Gravy Train without any unseemly jostling. |
|
| |
^ Extra credit for the colorful and accurate description of the
gits, oiks and kiddle-fiddlers of the American politico. |
|
| |
I suggest a very thick curtain is raised around the US when it's presidential election time. The curtain can be pulled back when the election is over. |
|
| |
My latest revelation: He's like the Leroy Jenkins of
the Republican Party. |
|
| |
This characteristic of the Republicans towards
increasing levels of idiocy is why I
became a Democrat 6 or 7 years ago. |
|
| |
// The curtain can be pulled back when the election is over. // |
|
| |
[whatrock], it's actually a generic description of politics - nothing specific to the USA. |
|
| |
Wherever you go, one cockroach is pretty much like another. |
|
| |
I don't mean to intrude, but could you remind me again what makes Hillary so corrupt?
I recently spoke to someone just back from a visit to America, and he expressed a similar bemusement, so it's not just me. |
|
| |
I may run for president someday as a human turnip. I'm
sure I can get the necessary backing. |
|
| |
That depends on the meaning of the word "so" |
|
| |
Look at the latest allegations of pay to play at the
state department. That is not even the tip of the
iceberg, |
|
| |
// makes Hillary so corrupt? // |
|
| |
... what else do you need to know ? |
|
| |
Corruption is insidious and often takes time. Also, it has
more causes than one might first think. The common
adage "Power corrupts" doesn't specify any particular
sort of power, though most folks assume "political
power" is what the dictum references. Hilary certainly
has had significant political power for a number of
years (was a US Senator before becoming Secretary of
State). |
|
| |
However, "money is power" --and Trump has been a
rich man for a long time. "Knowledge is power", and
there are famous cases of knowledgeable dudes using
their position of Authority to suppress new ideas. |
|
| |
What we need, then, is a way to measure corruption. I
will suggest that "arrogance" is the most obvious
symptom of corruption. There are probably other
symptoms, but I don't know any that are more obvious.
And since it *appears* that Trump is more arrogant than
Hilary.... |
|
| |
Vernon, I don't think that's a fair argument. I'll grant you
that people like Trump lobby and that causes corruption --
perhaps Trump has corrupted many a politician, Hillary
included :) |
|
| |
I'm not sure what's more arrogant than simply powering
through an indictable offense and then regularly using the
"no one is too big to jail" phrase. |
|
| |
[theircompetitor], you have described "hypocrisy", not
"arrogance". I will accept that hypocrisy could be another
symptom of corruption, though.... So what about Trump
and his tax forms? Wasn't he one who originally said the
candidates' tax forms needed to be made public? |
|
| |
oh, Trump certainly doesn't suffer from lack of either
hypocrisy or arrogance. But if you measure corruption by
the desire to personally benefit from access to power, it is
a) hard to beat the Clintons and b) hard to show that Trump
has benefited from his run. |
|
| |
Trump doesn't suffer from anything as to suffer implies some level of humanity. Instead he makes everyone else suffer from his hateful moronic comments, picking on weak and the most vulnerable like Mexican migrant workers; the disabled and most recently, the grieving parents of a war veteran. |
|
| |
It's probably true that the boy Donald can't be bribed - not with money, anyway. |
|
| |
Having a billionaire businessman in a position of authority makes a lot of sense. He's nothing to prove, and he's already got eveything; if he hasn't, he can send an underling to go and buy it for him. Right now. For cash. And it's clear he's not Mr. Nice Guy, and he's not squeaky clean. |
|
| |
[theircompetitor], just because Trump hasn't told everyone
how he secretly plans to personally benefit from having
political power, that doesn't mean he doesn't have secret
plans to personally benefit from having political power.
Just like most seekers of political power. |
|
| |
I think he's guilty of plenty of things without adding
precrime, Vernon. |
|
| |
" like the Leroy Jenkins of the Republican Party " |
|
| |
It must be a difficult year to be a member of the party. |
|
| |
[theircompetitor], It's interesting to see you discuss that the party candidate is human. |
|
| |
The captive breeding group of Republicans I use for benchmark are only able to be critical of candidates outside of their party. This is part of why I find party politics so creepy - one of the symptoms is partial blindness. |
|
| |
I confess I don't have any other captive breeding groups - their mating rituals are much less flamboyant, and they are more challenging to detect. |
|
| |
[normzone] I'm not a registered Republican though I have
voted for a Republican candidate in almost every election
I have ever voted in (my daughter ran for Congress as a
Libertarian, and I voted for her). |
|
| |
I will certainly not vote for Trump, and I think the party
did permanent damage to itself by letting what happened
happen, but I will also certainly not vote for Hillary (nor
would have for Sanders) |
|
| |
I don't view my politics like a sports fan (which is what I
think you're referring to). However, what's so shocking
(and sad)
about this year is that for the true fan, so to speak, (e.g.
markets, trade, abhorrence to populism,etc) Trump is so
outside the norm that it should have been a no-brainer.
It
turned out to be a no-brainer the other way :) |
|
| |
You can vote for me when I run as a human turnip. |
|
| |
They're both corrupt. Corruption is standard operating
procedure for anyone in power in a culture that worships
material gain and wealth. We expect one segment of
the population to govern us without regard to their own
gain? |
|
| |
If you want to eliminate corruption, you need to
eliminate the overlap in the governing and mercantile
classes. Two years in the military/public service before
you can vote. Ten years of service before you can hold
office. High salaries and pensions for all elected members
of government. Zero private or corporate campaign
contributions. No parties. |
|
| |
No permanent civil service; all government employees on a one-year renewable contract, or a three year contract with a one year break, five year with a two-year break, or seven years with a three year break. No opportunity to work more than seven years* at a stretch; make your own pension arrangements. No promotion, or merit pay awards, without a one year break - cost of living only. |
|
| |
One of the main obstacles to the proper function of democracy is the vested interests of the bureaucracy that is allegedly its servant. |
|
| |
*Employment in the police service, firefighters, or other roles where continuity of experience is an asset would not be included. The strictures refer to office-based administrative roles. |
|
| |
High salaries for officials I would go for. Trump has
shown you that name ID trumps money, money is
not the problem, pigs at the trough is the problem,
and since your going too have pigs, you have to
eliminate the trough |
|
| |
Public Service union upgraded to a guild, funded by its members, which takes care and pays for education time and expenses, extra holidays after x years, sick days, pension plans, health benefits, etc. |
|
| |
Other benefits are given only for things the gov't has immediate control over; some of them (for instance a free transit pass) are calculated into wage; some not - a city government might give a lower rate (or even free, if not already reserved) for arena rentals, for instance; or lower rates for city services, based on the employees not being in a position to stiff them on the bill. A large enough gov't facility might rent out cheaply space to the Guild for guild activities and services (dentist's office, bank, etc). |
|
| |
Gov't pays wage + minimum vacation, for ass-in-chair time only : wage is based on industry standards minus a small percentage to reflect the permanency of the employer. |
|
| |
At the end of the day, they'll be getting a bit more than their business contemporaries, mostly due to the bargaining power of a country-sized guild for pensions, health services, etc. while the citizenry can be (a little) confident that they're not being screwed over, at least not in the sense of "overpaid civil servants" anyways. |
|
| |
Corruption is partly a function of empathy. |
|
| |
The more you rely on empathy, rather than principle, to guide your choices, the more your choices will tend to favour the people around you, at the expense of other people (to whom you have a theoretical duty, but whom you don't actually know). |
|
| |
In Australia recently there have been two brave attempts to beat back the politics of empathy - one on the left (Kevin Rudd) and the other on the right (Tony Abbott). Both men outraged the people they worked with (civil servants, media, other politicians) by prioritising principles rather than personal relationships. Both men were therefore overthrown by their own parties, and replaced by bland, charming people, who completely failed to gain the public's trust or win an electoral mandate. |
|
| |
The entertaining part is that the people inside the political bubble genuinely can't understand where they're going wrong - they just complain about a mysterious disease called 'populism', for which they are, of course, in no way responsible. |
|
| |
It's as if they thought they'd been invited to the Decameron, and are only *very* slowly waking up to the fact that they're actually in the Masque of the Red Death. |
|
| |
... with the unfortunate twist that, sadly, none of them die. |
|
| |
// people .... civil servants, media, other politicians // |
|
| |
Do they rate as proper "people" ? We think not. |
|
| |
// people inside the political bubble // |
|
| |
There it is again. A dictionary may be helpful. |
|
| |
// Or have I missed something? // |
|
| |
Pretty much all of the last thousand years, apparently. |
|
| |
Not paying good leaders a wage competitive with
private industry pretty much guarantees that you
will get exactly as much ineptitude as you are
willing to buy. |
|
| |
As far as Hillary goes, all I hear are allegations, and
those simply originating from the right wing sites.
Never any real smoking gun, with the possible
exception of an email mishandling. |
|
| |
It's frankly time for those with the 20 year axe to
grind to simply put up or shut up. |
|
| |
Plenty of mobsters never get caught either. I have
no doubt of what she is, which, I must acknowledge,
might not prevent her from being a better President
than the current resident or, to be sure, Trump |
|
| |
I'm pretty sure all the allegations against Al
Capone
were false. Never any real smoking gun, with the
possible exception of a tax return mishandling. |
|
| |
Anti Italian-American propaganda from Christian
right
wing prohibitionists mostly. Again, it's that right
wing
lie machine. |
|
| |
But seriously, rather than repeating the well
documented allegations that Clinton sold influence
while Secretary of State, I'll post just one of the
absurd counters to these allegations on one of
many "debunking" sites on the web. |
|
| |
"Forbes: Giustra had already pledged $5 million to
the Clinton Foundation “months prior to the trip.”
“The Times makes much of Giustra’s post-trip
pledge to the Clinton Foundation of $31 million but
failed to mention that Giustra had already pledged
in July 2005 an initial $5 million months prior to
the trip. As Khan tells it, at the time of the trip
‘all the president knew was that Frank was in the
mining business and wanted to become a world-
class philanthropist.’” |
|
| |
So he wasn't paying off the Clintons for 31 million
bucks because months before he gave them 5
million proving that the guy just randomly donates
money because he wanted to become a: "world-
class philanthropist". That's just one of many
ridiculous arguments I found. Another states that
the State Department didn't need to sign off on the
uranium deal that Clinton okayed because it was a
private company. That's complete bunk, but there
are many other outright lies in these sites. Very
bad cover stories tend to make me think the party
being covered for is guilty, and there are many out
there. The main overall argument though is she
didn't get caught and all these favors after
payment were merely coincidence. Well, ok. |
|
| |
But if there's any good facts refuting these
corruption charges I'm certainly open to looking at
them. I've heard one side, I'd love to hear the
other. |
|
| |
My thought is, her supporters see here ability to
get
away with this kind of stuff as a strength, not a
weakness. They WANT somebody who "plays by
their own rules" to get this people's revolution
going. "Mao and Stalin weren't restrained by
bourgeois game rules, they did what they had to.
That's what we need in a leader." |
|
| |
You can think Donald Trump is an idiot and an
asshole without having to believe that Hillary
Clinton isn't a corrupt, sociopathic liar. These
aren't
mutually exclusive
concepts. |
|
| |
Which brings up a core tenet of libertarianism, that
this power should be limited so that it might be more
easily regulated. The power of government to
regulate needs to be regulated and the bigger it gets
the harder it is to keep things honest. |
|
| |
I hesitate to bring up libertarianism when the current
parties in charge have put up such awesome
candidates for the presidency. I mean, they're both
so good, how do you chose? |
|
| |
[xenzag]. you made me laugh very hard. And yes, I would
vote for you, you little turnip you, over either of the other
options. And here's a hug to go with my vote. {{{*}}} |
|
| |
We too would support electing a turnip. It couldn't possibly be worse than the other options. |
|
| |
// Donald Trump is an idiot and an asshole without having to believe that Hillary Clinton isn't a corrupt, sociopathic liar. // |
|
| |
Is it OK to believe that Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are both idiots, assholes and corrupt, sociopathic liars ? |
|
| |
That's probably the nearest you'll get to the truth ...</Colonel Jessep> |
|
| |
//Is it OK to believe that Donald Trump and Hillary
Clinton are both idiots, assholes and corrupt,
sociopathic liars ?// |
|
| |
Even better, as a hypothesis it is internally consistent, and completely explains the observed facts. |
|
| |
Another core tenet of libertarianism is that it doesn't
provide much of a check on the power of private
industry to abuse the public interest. |
|
| |
Whereas the success of the other parties on the
subject is self evident? |
|
| |
Success is not a pass-fail grade. I'd give
Libertarians an F, the Republicans a C-, and the
Democrats a C. |
|
| |
//Another core tenet of libertarianism is that it
doesn't provide much of a check on the power of
private industry to abuse the public interest.// |
|
| |
Like the Democrat party does? Like that
bankruptcy bill to make it easier for the banks to
rape people who are deeply in debt to the already
filthy rich? (See link) Not sure which Democrat to
believe, but I know that bankruptcy bill was pure
evil. People need to be protected from
governments AND industry sometimes. Just for the
record, I've never had to declare bankruptcy but
the idea of limiting that protection because
somebody poor owes money to somebody rich is
pretty sickening in my opinion. |
|
| |
Libertarians DO believe in laws, just not stupid
laws. Getting into these: "My tribe good, your tribe
bad." discussions doesn't accomplish much. I'm fine
with discussing individual issues though. I don't
mindlessly endorse any party but I believe big
government just attracts corrupt power mongers.
The libertarian party is about as close to sane as
anything out there in my opinion but they're not
perfect. |
|
| |
That being said, nobody will ever change their
mind about 1- religion or 2- politics so I've just
wasted everybody's time. I would like to see the
libertarian candidate in the debates though, just
for some different perspective. Nothing wrong with
that. |
|
| |
Balance of power is good. The tricky part is to make sure the powers that are supposed to be balancing each other are not in bed together. The recently proclaimed "death of sex" (see link) is therefore a very positive step for democracy. |
|
| |
Sadly, that's not quite true. Remember the murder of Jo Cox? |
|
| |
There was a tragedy of cognitive deficits there. |
|
| |
In populist terrorism generally, the blind murder the blind. Just as the terrorists don't really understand the phenomenon they're fighting, so also their targets don't really understand the problem they themselves are part of. Except that the targets of such terrorism usually *think* that they do understand, and that the problem can be patronized away. Hence, no dialogue. Whence, violence. |
|
| |
// Sadly, that's not quite true. Remember the murder of Jo Cox? // |
|
| |
What's sad about that ? No one forced her to become a politician. No one made her jump through all those hoops to get elected. She was a nurse, she had a proper job that was respected and socially useful. She could have stuck with that. She could have got another job if she chose. Now, her kids have lost their mother, needlessly. |
|
| |
It doesn't matter how or why politicos are eradicated, just as long as they are. |
|
| |
//What's sad about that ?// |
|
| |
The Anarchists' Paradox: if you remove formal power structures (by, for example, killing everyone in them), then they are simply replaced by informal power structures, which are even less transparent and accountable. |
|
| |
I call this The Anarchists' Paradox because it occurred to me after I spent an evening at a meeting of actual anarchists. As anarchists, they had no officials or standing orders. Nevertheless, there were just one or two individuals who told the others what to do, and the others did as they were told. And those one or two people struck me as the most vicious ones, in a group that was mostly just amiably muddled. |
|
| |
Hence, killing all the politicians doesn't make politics go away. |
|
| |
No, but by removing the entrenched mindset (and dissuading those of similar mindset) then change becomes easier to implement. |
|
| |
If a company is failing, one of the common remedial actions is to sack some, or all, of the existing management, and bring in people who know what they're doing and are prepared to make hard decisions. |
|
| |
That's not always the remedy. There may have been unexpected and unanticipated changes in the market - political, fashion, environmental. Whatever the cause, the management needs to adapt - and adapt quickly - to the new reality. |
|
| |
Those that do not are doomed. |
|
| |
An anarchist's group calling a meeting is a contradiction itself. |
|
| |
Doc, see my above comments on grades. The L's as
a party
in power would be even more hijacked by monied
interests
than the current front leaders. That's one reason
why it's a
popular party by those with lots of money. |
|
| |
It's very easy to find and rail against stupid laws. It's
much
more difficult to project/detect the pitfalls of an
absence
of good law. And it's not always obvious which is
which, as
the perspective of ranters often contains a bit of,
um,
rantishness. Furthermore, I doubt that you'd find
many parties that would want stupid laws--it seems
the devil is in the details of what they find to be
stupid... |
|
| |
//I don't mean to intrude// |
|
| |
I share [Loris]'s bemusement on this point. |
|
| |
I don't know whether Hillary is corrupt or not, but this
circumstantial fact strikes me; that during the eight years
of the Dubya presidency, the administration had every
opportunity to build a criminal case against her. The fact
that they didn't do so suggests to me that, at that time at
least, there just wasn't much evidence. |
|
| |
Similarly, I don't know whether she's a gangster or not, but I
hadn't heard any rumours of people murdering or
intimidating potential witnesses against her. This, surely,
distinguishes her from Al Capone. |
|
| |
So, for all I know, she may be guilty, but I still find the idea
that she's *obviously* guilty a little strange. |
|
| |
// there just wasn't much evidence. // |
|
| |
One hand washes the other. |
|
| |
Evidence can always be found, or made. After Bush cometh Obama ... the ball's back in the Democrat court. |
|
| |
If Dubya goes after Clinton, Obama frames Bush. What goes around, comes around. In the interests of maintaining an undeserved veneer of credibility, even the winners have to take care to shield the losers to some extent, otherwise the system that put them in power loses credibility (like it ever had any). Which is not in their interests. |
|
| |
//during the eight years of the Dubya presidency,
the administration had every opportunity to build a
criminal case against her.// |
|
| |
Well, most of the outstanding allegations against
Hillary are
about what she did after Bush was out of office.
The murder stuff was never prosecutable since
there was not enough evidence. It could all be
nonsense, I have no idea. The case of the guy who
died by dropping a barbell on his neck days before
pre-trial questioning about a money laundering
case linked to the Clintons is a bit fishy, but "a bit
fishy" doesn't stand up in court. |
|
| |
There were also
some alleged wrongdoings that were dealt with by
the court
like the Travelgate issue where the judge said it was
suspicious but there was not enough evidence to
guarantee a successful prosecution. |
|
| |
And besides, Bush's credo was to go along to get
along. Cheney might have had other ideas but Bush
just wanted us to all be friends. Didn't work out so
great. |
|
| |
Hence his eagerness to disclose his returns. I find
Putin pretty transparent too, but hesitate to put his
friends and defenders in charge. |
|
| |
Well, I expect Hillary to win and we'll have a kind
of "reverse communism" where instead of the
government owning the means of production, the
corporations who pay to play will own the
government. I've heard it called "corporatocracy".
Hillary's specialty will be to put a bow
on it for acceptance by the useful idiots and they'll
all happily accept their reduced wages and
increased living
expenses with glassy eyed, foaming at the mouth
adulation. |
|
| |
So the corporations will run things. Not my first
choice but that's happened before, not the end of
the world. Probably better than having all power
centered around some ideological, all powerful
central government trying to put their fingers into
each industry on a case by case basis, like when
Mao decided to put his intellectual touch on
farming and starved tens of millions of people. |
|
| |
In the less likely event that Trump wins, I don't
know. I have to see his
cabinet to decide where his administration is
going. If they're smart folks with a track record of
doing good stuff it might work out. If they're a
bunch of dumb-asses then probably not. Gotta wait
and see on that one. |
|
| |
Trump has no chance of winning. Clinton will be a third term of Obama interrupted with occasional impeachment proceedings. |
|
| |
If Trump wins we'll have a race riot war the likes of
which we haven't seen since the 60's. |
|
| |
A Libertarian would be even more in bed with
private corporate interests, imho. |
|
| |
One of the primary Libertarian platforms is ending
corporate welfare and government favoritism. It's
a fundamental core tenet of
Libertarianism, in fact, it's about the main one
after defending individual liberty. From one of
many websites: "We
oppose all forms of government subsidies and
bailouts to business." |
|
| |
That's like saying "If the Jews started their own
state,
they'd have lots of Nazis." It's so far gone from
reality
I don't know where to start. |
|
| |
Ray, read up a little bit about the Libertarian
platform before you continue embarrassing
yourself. |
|
| |
As far as race riots, like the one going on right now
where they just called up the National Guard? (see
link) |
|
| |
This latest incident was caused by black cops
shooting a black man holding a gun but that
doesn't
matter I guess. I grew up in a black community in
the
60s and have vivid memories of this sort of thing.
It
pains me to see people taking this path, it will not
turn out well for these communities. There are
hard
working folks in these areas just trying to make a
living that are
going to be very negatively impacted with this faux
revolution nonsense. |
|
| |
Libertarianism also supports cutting back on laws
that keep industries in check with little things like
the environment, consumer protection laws,
resource management, etc. Forget your subsidy
ban. That's just one aspect. The corporations will
own it all. |
|
| |
Yes, I've read a bit. If you think I'm embarrassing
myself then you haven't exactly thought about the
angle I'm coming from. |
|
| |
And yeah, we have riots now, but I'm talking entire
cities going berzerk, like Detroit 1967. It'll be just
about that bad if you elect a race-baiter to the land's
highest office. |
|
| |
Cut my mic. I'm going to bed. |
|
| |
//The corporations will own it all.// |
|
| |
So you're voting for Hillary because she won't accept
bribes to grant favors to the corporations. |
|
| |
Can't make this stuff up folks. |
|
| |
You know, England has replaced the heads of two of
its political parties, and will soon be replacing the
third. As far as I can tell, even the worst of them
would be better than your current options for the
presidency. So, if you'd like me to put a word in on
your behalf, just let me know. |
|
| |
Rather one Hillary than an entire party full of them. I'd
rather not give the Koch brothers their most glorious dream
on a silver platter, thanks. |
|
| |
Sorry Max, we have an arcane rule about citizenship. |
|
| |
// England has replaced the heads of two of its political parties, and will soon be replacing the third. // |
|
| |
Sadly, however, the heads were left attached to the bodies, a curious and highly regrettable omission. |
|
| |
//Sadly, however, the heads were left attached to the bodies, a curious and highly regrettable omission.// |
|
| |
LOL, now THAT'S sharp political commentary. |
|
| |
// sharp political commentary // |
|
| |
Sufficiently so for the purpose, i.e. as sharp as a headsman's axe ... |
|
| |
Jesus could I possibly spell it out any simpler? |
|
| |
The Libertarian party seeks to limit the power of
government intrusion into the private lives of citizens. |
|
| |
In doing so it also limits the power of the government
into the regulations by which corporations must currently
abide. |
|
| |
Weakening the federal government by the removal of
these regulations, which is generally favored by a great
many private corporations for the purposes of their own
profits, therefore plays into their interests, at the
expense of the general public for whom a great deal of
these regulations are put into place. |
|
| |
But that's not all the Libertarians would allow. The
Clean
Air Act would be repealed. Laws against water
pollution
would be repealed. Laws against selling toxins in food
would be repealed ---all those things are enforced by
government inspectors, see? The only way businesses
under
a Libertarian system could be kept under control is if
everyone carried a gun and used them on CEOs whose
companies did bad things. THAT at least would be
legal! |
|
| |
Except of course the evil CEOs would be surrounded by
goons who would shoot back --or even shoot first. |
|
| |
Libertarians believe there should be no laws about
anything ever! You would be able to murder people and
eat their heads! |
|
| |
Under a Libertarian government with strong property
ownership rights, you have no right to pollute the air I
breathe or the water I drink. This is MY air and MY water.
You polluted it and you will be brought to court and made
to stop damaging the environment, then be forced to
clean it up. You cannot impinge on other people's rights
to a clean environment. |
|
| |
I'm sure there are those out there that will say the courts
will be abolished under a Libertarian government but
we'll take the allegations one at a time. |
|
| |
Bottom line, there ARE laws under a Libertarian
government system. Laws are what protects people.
Laws are very important. Law good. This is not anarchy. |
|
| |
[doctorremulac3], it is the enforcement of laws that
protects people, not the laws themselves. And just
because you claim some air or water is yours, why should
anyone believe you? How do you plan on proving that?
What if someone claims to own all of it? |
|
| |
I think the problem starts with having people call
themselves "Libertarians", and "Libertarianism"
becoming a thing. It's a bit like having a "Freedom of
Speech" party - it makes you wonder what the others
are like. |
|
| |
//What if someone claims to own all of it?// |
|
| |
You're really having to create these bizarre scenarios
where six hundred foot tall Godzilibertarians start
running amok and crushing our cities under foot. |
|
| |
The Libertarian party is just another political party that
has some variation in proposals for how to do things.
There have been Libertarian mayors, governors and
congressmen. It's the 3rd biggest political party in the US.
I think it's healthy to have alternatives to the Republicrat
machine. |
|
| |
The smartest people I've ever met have been Libertarian.
I've seen IQ test wars about who's dumbest, Dems or
Repubs, but I've never seen a three way including
Libertarians. I'm thinking Libertarians would take that
contest handily. |
|
| |
Obvious point #1. Dragging people to court to stop
doing
X is rather too late. The deed is done. The damage
is
done. This is the point of a regulation, to prevent all
of
that loss. Managing and making sense of those
regulations in a way that provide protection for all
people regardless of their financial means is the
role of
government. |
|
| |
Point #2. Some of them exist in specialized
environments
that are outside of the confines of the expertise of
the
general public, who would upon casual observation,
consider them needless. |
|
| |
Point #3. Private property is not the only thing that
exists
in the world that needs protected. |
|
| |
Point #4. I believe that in a Libertarian environment,
the
tendency for money to buy influence in lawmaking
becomes even greater than it does in our present
system.
I don't want to live in a company town. |
|
| |
Point #5. Sometimes some of the smartest people
also
tend to be some of the dumbest outside of their
field.
Case in point: one Ben Carson. And I've went to
school
with some pretty bright people, myself. |
|
| |
The libertarians might win it, if they weren't busy
smoking something. But when it comes to getting
things
done I'll take 'effective' over 'tests well' any day. |
|
| |
My politics, limpnodes? I believe in dynamic
stability. I believe that every system and process
gets gamed and develops cobwebs, and that even
the method by which we clean the cobwebs needs
dusted off itself from time to time. Hence this time
around I thought we needed Bernie. When they're
not behaving like asses I'll side with the Eisenhower
wing of the Republicans, but they don't really exist
much anymore. Frankly Barry Goldwater's offspring
can go jump off of a cliff, and I could have a
reasonable party back. |
|
| |
Wow. I don't know much about the political spectrum
in the US, but if one party calls themselves
"Libertarians" and one criticism of them is that
they're all on drugs, I begin to like UK politics more. |
|
| |
//This is the point of a regulation, to prevent all of that
loss// |
|
| |
Which is why Libertarians have laws and regulations.
Think we covered that. |
|
| |
// Some of them exist in specialized environments that
are outside of the confines of the expertise of the
general public, who would upon casual observation,
consider them needless// |
|
| |
The general public? You mean those guys who invented
and discovered, oh, everything? The guys who created the
microchip, discovered DNA, invented vaccines, rocket
engines, television, those guys? I'm pretty sure we do just
fine figuring things out without the "Government Institute
For Figuring Things Out." telling us what's up. |
|
| |
//Private property is not the only thing that exists in the
world that needs protected.// |
|
| |
//I believe that in a Libertarian environment, the
tendency for money to buy influence in lawmaking
becomes even greater than it does in our present system.
I don't want to live in a company town.// |
|
| |
A Libertarian government is based in part on NOT selling
influence to industry, we've covered that. Furthermore,
the Democrats are completely for sale to the highest
bidder,at least they will be under the Hillary. |
|
| |
//Sometimes some of the smartest people also tend to
be some of the dumbest outside of their field.// |
|
| |
Well, with that I won't totally disagree because I'm
fascinated by the very common occurrence of smart
people being wrong, but I believe in the general rule that
smarter people TEND to make smart decisions on things. |
|
| |
But yes, groups of smart people can do very dumb stuff.
Still, I'd like to see where Libertarians are on that IQ
chart compared to the ruling parties. |
|
| |
As far as being on drugs, I may be addicted to caffeine
but since I'll never attempt to get through a day without
it I may never know. |
|
| |
No, I mean the general public that includes people
that burn random buildings for fun, think that 'chem
trails' are a conspiracy from the illuminati, think
Elvis is alive and well, are hoping that crystals will
protect them from bad energy, and that super
beings resembling 6 foot fairies protect them from
harm. |
|
| |
I don't think the Libertarians would be terribly
successful at preventing the sale of government
interest, given the schemes I've read at least. Too
much magic fairy dust involved, where super people
have perfect product information despite an almost
assured increase in disinformation campaigns. |
|
| |
Well, we put the smart ones in charge and keep
the stupid ones out of power by evaluating them
and voting properly. If somebody says they believe
in chemtrails or homeopathic medicine we don't
vote for them. |
|
| |
You know why the Democrats have taken over the
country? They decided they were going to be the
ones in the pockets of the big corporations,
something that the Republicans had always been
accused of, but they did it smart. They realized
you need money and corporations are the ones to
go to for that, but their specialty is fronting for
these big corporations wearing a Che Guevara
concert t-shirt and posing as protector of the
people. The sheep are dumb enough to say "She's
one of us." and everybody's happy. Except the
middle class who has to pay for this love fest
between the elites and their corporate overlords. |
|
| |
Very weird to find myself agreeing with my arch
enemies, the Bernie supporting communists, but
on this account they're spot on. |
|
| |
Although the Democrats did do a good job of
sticking it to
the health care industry by forcing every man
woman and child in America to buy their product.
Take that big corporations! Power to the people! |
|
| |
Ray (and Vernon) -- I think where you're off is you are
putting up a Libertarian straw-man -- the classical "so you
don't believe in roads" argument. Practical government is
ultimately practical government -- it was Bush after all
that pushed the bailout through -- though plenty of
Republicans outside government opposed it. Also, the
scenario being talked about here is the presidential
election, not every official in every nook and cranny. |
|
| |
As to regulation -- I'll grant you it is much easier to point
at an event failure primarily driven by conservative
sentiment -- say something like Flint -- than at the
aggregate failure that the FDA is in terms of medical
costs, pace of drug development, etc, or even more so on
the regulatory state on economic growth -- but let me
assure you both have a cost to society. |
|
| |
Government is balancing a multitude of impulses, from
"there ought to be a law" to "don't thread on me". Hard
to see how anyone can argue that the "don't thread on
me" circle in the Venn diagram has been shrinking and
shrinking and shrinking -- so the recent growth of the
Libertarian party is a response to that, and I would argue
a healthy one to balance the absurdities of the ever
sprawling bureaucracies. |
|
| |
I think the path forward should be based in critique of
policies of the past. Let's look at bank regulation, or I
should say "bank regulation". |
|
| |
In the 90s, I remember Democrats telling banks they
were not to
"redline" any more, that is keep housing loans out of
certain neighborhoods that had typically lower average
credit ratings because this was "racist". |
|
| |
So since the banks couldn't just say people of color get
loans easier, they made it easier for everybody, the birth
of the "NINJA" loan, no income, no job, no assets.
Everybody got to be a housing speculator. When that
little pyramid scheme collapsed, guess who the
Democrats blamed? An election was coming up and it was
perfect timing. "See what happens under Republicans?" Of
course the Democrats voted for the bank bailouts
because you can't let banks lose money on stupid
investments right? Paying for the speculative
misadventures of the elite is the job of the lowly, hated
middle class. |
|
| |
There are good regulations and there are bad
regulations. Saying "I'm pro fire because it warms homes
and cooks food." met with criticism of fire like "Oh, so you
support burning homes down?" doesn't really get us
anywhere. Gotta take these things on a case by case
basis. |
|
| |
//You know why the Democrats have taken over the
country? They decided they were going to be the ones in
the pockets of the big corporations, something that the
Republicans had always been accused of, but they did it
smart.// |
|
| |
One might be tempted to say that over time, the
message of the Democratic party has become diluted by
the numbers of Republicans abandoning ship over time
for the other side. But I think it's pretty clear where the
vast majority of the exec level stand in a normal
election. |
|
| |
As far as healthcare is concerned, Democrats didn't get
what they wanted, either. The resulting bill is simply
what would pass by the Republicans. |
|
| |
Count me among the Bernie supporters. But not a
communist. Nor even a socialist, nor even a democratic
socialist, all of which you should learn are different
things. |
|
| |
And I tend to fight strawmen with strawmen. Fewer
actual injuries that way, although little advancement. |
|
| |
Republicans mastered the art of wearing WWJD bracelets
while building ever larger barns to hoard their own grain,
burning crosses in the lawns of every 'furiner,' and
blaming everyone else for their own redstate
misery over two decades ago. |
|
| |
Might want to check your facts. It was the Democrats
who were burning crosses on lawns and supporting the
KKK. |
|
| |
The Republican Party was founded primarily to oppose
slavery. Remember Lincoln and the whole "Free the
slaves." thing? Republicans were the ones that eventually
abolished slavery.
The Democratic Party fought them and tried to maintain
and expand slavery. The 13th Amendment, abolishing
slavery, passed in 1865 with 100% Republican support but
only 23% Democrat support in congress. |
|
| |
But damn, gotta hand it to them. Their propaganda
machine is good. Very very good. The Republicans come
across as a bunch of bumbling "Church Ladies" (from SNL)
asking "Is the camera on? Which way to I face?" when
trying to use media to communicate their message,
whatever the hell that is. |
|
| |
I've always said, Democrat or Republican, evil or stupid,
take your pick. |
|
| |
//Count me among the Bernie supporters. But not a
communist. Nor even a socialist, nor even a democratic
socialist, all of which you should learn are different
things.// |
|
| |
I've always marveled at how socialists are shy about
admitting they're socialists. At least they realize that
brand
is pretty tarnished I guess. I think if you vote for a
socialist, you're a socialist no? Bernie IS a socialist, at
least HE thinks so and says as much. And it's funny how all
the communists have disappeared. Where the heck did
they go? A study in re-branding if ever there was one. |
|
| |
I just want to add that just because I disagree with
somebody doesn't mean I think they're evil, and unlike
some I don't throw around the "Worse than Hitler." thing
at the
slightest difference of opinion. There are good socialists,
probably even good (if mislead) communists. We're all
just trying to figure this stuff out as best we can and
debate can be a good tool we use to figure things out. |
|
| |
And who knows, maybe I'll be the first person in history to
change somebody's view on politics. |
|
| |
Ray, I'm presuming the 50 shades of socialism is for the
doctor's's benefit? After all, I had 50 Volumes of Lenin in the
house library :) |
|
| |
What I don't understand is why you people just don't
elect Obama for another term, given that he seems
so popular. |
|
| |
<sits back; takes out pipe; fetches beer> |
|
| |
[doctorremulac3], the Republicans of 150 years ago are
not the Republicans of today. Today they want to
abolish the Minimum Wage Laws. Remember that a
great many Republicans are business owners. That
means they want ordinary folks to work for them for a
pittance --not a lot of difference between that and
slavery, when ordinary folks have to work to be able to
afford to survive. |
|
| |
Their own propaganda machine has been touting how
they want to create jobs --but because they want to
abolish the Minimum Wage Law, the logical
consequence is that they want to take every job that
pays $10 an hour, and convert it into 10 jobs that each
pay $1 an hour --see? Lots more jobs! But no net
benefit for anyone except Republican business-owners. |
|
| |
I think you're getting this Libertarian confused with
somebody who supports the Republicans, but I do believe
the Democrats don't have the best interest of African
Americans at heart. I believe welfare is slavery with a
shiny new coat of paint. Get them addicted to welfare,
break up the family and you've got a subjugated and
dependent people who need to vote for you to survive. |
|
| |
Although I'm not a supporter of either the Republican or
Democrat parties, I'm not a mindless supporter of the
Libertarians either. For one thing I support a minimum
wage because as somebody who's owned businesses, I've
paid a living wage. If I couldn't, I had no business being in
business. |
|
| |
Let me put it this way. If somebody has business that uses
horses rather than people to perform the work, and they
come to me and say "I can only afford to pay half of the
food costs to feed these horses and you need to cover the
rest." I say "You need to get out of the horse business." So
when Walmart hires people that still need my tax money
to survive, I have no problem with telling Walmart "You
use people, you pay for their upkeep, not me. If I'm
paying for their upkeep with social welfare programs, I
want them working for me, the taxpayer, not you, the
rich corporation. I'll have them building roads, tending
parks, doing something more useful for me than making
you rich." |
|
| |
But the real party of depressing wages for their
corporate overlords is the Democrat party. The mantra is
"Aliens will do the jobs that Americans aren't willing to
do." This is code for "Aliens will do the jobs FOR LOWER
WAGES than Americans are willing to take." Plus
immigrants vote for the party of taxpayer handouts, so
business benefit from lower wages and the Democrat
party benefits from a greater voter base. Everybody
wins. |
|
| |
Except the American workers already here. |
|
| |
Can I just point out that, despite this being a political
discussion, everybody seems to be behaving very politely
to each other? What the hell's going on here? Should I
start calling people Hitler to get the ball rolling? |
|
| |
that's frighteningly misinformed, [Vernon], on multiple
fronts. |
|
| |
First of all, the number of "registered" members of either
party is relatively small. Let me assure you though that
from the 61M people that voted for Romney in 2012, only
a tiny percentage was "business owners" -- and
simultaneously, Obama's 65M no doubt included a roughly
similar number business owners (when compared to the
overall vote), including people like Buffet and Gates, and
including probably 1/3 to 1/2 of Wall St executives. |
|
| |
Whatever you think of the minimum wage, it should be
quite obvious that it's costs find their way back to
consumers (quite often also living on minimal salaries),
thereby closing the loop and being ultimately useless. |
|
| |
The "their own propaganda machine" is a bit laughable,
even allowing for Fox and Drudge we live in a "democratic
socialist" press society, certainly by volume. Or else you
haven't seen a trending shaming tweet recently. |
|
| |
[MaxwellBuchanan], the US Constitution has an
Amendment (its 22nd) that limits a President to a
maximum of 2 terms in office. In some ways this is a
good thing, because the President nominates those who
will serve on the Supreme Court --and if accepted, they
serve for life. A long-term President (like Roosevelt
was, with 4 terms), can hugely skew the Court in terms
of political bias --and Roosevelt did exactly that. The
22nd Amendment was done after Roosevelt's time, of
course. |
|
| |
[theircompetitor], perhaps I should have been more
specific. Most Republicans in Congress and the Senate
have business backgrounds --and expect to go back into
business when they are done changing the laws to favor
themselves. |
|
| |
I think part of the problem with American politics -
or at least the cause of much heated argument - is
that your political parties are so different from
one another. That is bound to polarize opinion and
lead to one side demonizing the other in almost
any debate. |
|
| |
Here in England, we long ago found a way to avoid
this kind of unpleasantness by making all three
major parties identical. This not only makes
everything much calmer, but also ensures the free
migration of politicians across party borders. It's a
win/win/win situation, really. It has also been a
boon to the tie industry, since the colour of
neckwear is the only party-distinguishing feature
permitted in public appearances. |
|
| |
//we long ago found a way to avoid this kind of
unpleasantness by making all three major parties
identical// |
|
| |
Pretty sure our guys are figuring that one out. |
|
| |
Candidate A: "My party promises more jobs and less
taxes!" |
|
| |
Candidate B: "Well, unlike my opponent, I promise not
only
to cut taxes, but to stimulate job growth!" |
|
| |
As far as term limits go, I say give 'em two weeks. By the
time they've changed the carpeting to their liking kick
them the hell out. "NEXT!". In case it's not obvious, pretty
much all politicians disgust me. See link for a beautiful
song that sums up my feelings on the subject. |
|
| |
[Vernon], I'll take your point -- I believe that both parties
are much more interested in Big Business than small
business, non-withstanding their rhetoric. |
|
| |
As you may have seen elsewhere on these pages, I'm a big
believer that we're on the path to the Singularity, but
even without that eventuality automation is in any case
making labor force participation irrelevant, and I believe
all major parties will be getting on board Basic Income
within a generation. And as committed a believer as I am
to property rights, I'm hard pressed to see why a society
would not invest in fully automated food production --
and once it does and presuming it is self-perpetuating,
why would it actually charge for it. |
|
| |
This repeal of scarcity, which is being mini-tested in
digital media is going to change everything. But it will
not change the fact that some will own rocketships, and
others will own shit. That may have to wait a bit longer. |
|
| |
When robots are doing everything maybe the idea of
ownership will be a thing of the past since everything
gets handed to us and is therefor not considered really
worth anything. |
|
| |
What does an animal hardened for survival my millions of
years of evolution do when faced with basically being
cattle waiting for our feeding? What point is having an
intellect, a brain, aggression? Hell, legs and binocular
vision for that matter. Do we just de-evolve into slug like
food digestion tubes? |
|
| |
Sorry, getting off topic for a sec there. |
|
| |
I think you would have an explosion in hobbyist work (you
already see it in reality tv (e.g. blacksmiths, survivalists,
cooks, etc, artisans, restores, etc). |
|
| |
I think you would have an explosion in creative work yet
to be imagined (think medieval festivals that are not
festivals but 6 months expeditions recreating, say, a GOT
campaign -- i'd say that's a start, we'll go way beyond that |
|
| |
I think you would have plenty of absurdly ambitious
lifestyles (live underwater, live in antarctica, live on
moon base) |
|
| |
Pretty hard to predict the effect of widespread CRISPR
therapies for instance -- my guess would be a pretty
drastic drop in birth rate unless we truly come up with a
way to get off planet. |
|
| |
And then the really strange stuff that will come 25 years
after that. |
|
| |
Well, good. As long as we don't de-evolve into slug like food
digestion tubes. Sounds pretty boring. |
|
| |
I think if we don't make the leap to the next frontier though
we may have some problems adjusting. Inhabiting other
planets there'll be no shortage of wit sharpening challenges,
but staying here and figuring out what to do until the robots
bring our soilent green smoothies, maybe not so much. |
|
| |
//When robots are doing everything maybe the idea of ownership will be a thing of the past |
|
| |
<Starts knocking out books in QR code.. "Swing low, sweet chariot" etc. At least the Underground Railroad will work a bit better, seeing as there are underground railroads these days. Best to avoid any loop line if trying to escape. NB the quilting code was pretty good idea (linky) different quilts for "get ready to load the wagon and escape", "this person is safe to talk to" etc> |
|
| |
I grow tired of being told about the 1800's. This
selective memory is
one reason why I rarely take you very seriously.
Defend the ideology at all costs.! Forget about the
history...
Vernon's already captured it; everything changed in
the 1960's with the advent of the voting rights act
and the KKK of today. To a man, if they
vote, it won't be for a Democrat. |
|
| |
No, voting for Bernie or wanting to doesn't make me
a socialist any more than painting my living room
makes me an artist. |
|
| |
About Flint: living 35 miles from there, I can tell you
that the fault there lay in both partys' hands. Flint
isn't exactly a Republican stronghold. |
|
| |
As far as the minimum wage is concerned, we've
had this conversation before. The effect of
increased wages would of course be temporary
until service prices would filter out. And you are
again ignoring the market cost pressure of the
global economy to suppress them. |
|
| |
//What does an animal hardened for survival my millions of years of evolution do when faced with basically being cattle waiting for our feeding? |
|
| |
The West is in decline. Fortunately for the West, there are 5 billion other people out there who are hungry and armed or easily so. |
|
| |
//As far as the minimum wage is concerned, we've had
this conversation before. The effect of increased wages
would of course be temporary until service prices would
filter out. And you are again ignoring the market cost
pressure of the global economy to suppress them.// |
|
| |
I might as well be arguing with the cat. |
|
| |
I don't want to subsidize businesses. I don't want to
subsidize Walmart, I don't want to subsidize Mobile Oil, I
don't want to subsidize the banks. |
|
| |
This conversation was starting to get interesting, even
pleasant, and
you're dragging it back into the childish insults and
"Democrat party good
non-Democrat bad!" nonsense. Ok, they're great, anybody
who's not a Democrat sucks, we get it. Good for you. Now
why don't you go find a nice Republican to argue with? |
|
| |
I was speaking to [tc] with that little paragraph.
And read my treatise on Flint again if you think I'm in the
D-good, R-bad camp. |
|
| |
You were speaking to me with the stupid insult. Knock if off. |
|
| |
I was speaking to you with the point about not taking you
seriously. |
|
| |
I was speaking to tc about the minimum wage. Because I've
had that conversation with him before. |
|
| |
Don't tell me otherwise, I know whom I'm addressing, you
are just guessing. Amazing things, paragraphs are. They
can separate whole ideas. Or did you happen to raise the
point about Flint? |
|
| |
If you want to debate something civilly, that's fine. If you're
going to rely on insults I'm really not interested. |
|
| |
The same can be said for using cherry-picking out of history
to support your arguments as if I wasn't aware of the
founding of the Republican Party or basic US history. You
could have just graciously said something like 'oh, my bad,'
when I told you it what wasn't directed at you. |
|
| |
Amazing things, names of the people you're addressing at
the front of your paragraph. Lets people know who the hell
you're talking to. |
|
| |
I addressed, very clearly, how the Democrat party changed
its slavery tactics by creating a welfare state, but that
went over your head evidently. |
|
| |
Acknowledged. Lots of thoughts thrown together in one
post as they came to me over time. |
|
| |
No, I read it but didn't acknowledge it because I thought it
was borderline conspiracy bunk. |
|
| |
Now can we get back to the topic at hand? |
|
| |
But I'll bet it didn't knock the pole vault bar down. Poor
guy... |
|
| |
[Ian Tindale], your browser usually provides a scroll bar
that you can use to estimate the length of a web page. |
|
| |
Regarding robots and basic income, their is a
"ridiculous!" aspect to that. After the capital
investment has been paid for, and with energy sources
like wind and solar providing power for free (again after
capital costs have been paid for), then there is no
reason to charge anything for the products of the
robots. So why would a basic income be needed? |
|
| |
Regarding the end of scarcity, there is a "ridiculous!"
aspect to that, too. Does not anyone here remember
the prime tenet upon which Malthus deduced a
Catastrophe was *inevitable* (only the question of
"when" remains to be determined), so long as
population keeps growing? I'll link an essay about that,
by Isaac Asimov. |
|
| |
That prime tenet is, "Population *always* grows to meet
and even exceed the availability of resources." There
are no exceptions in either the animal kingdom, or the
plant kingdom, or even the bacterial kingdom. The
degree of a Malthusian Catastrophe depends only on
how much population has grown beyond the available
resources, before members of the population start
dying in droves. The bigger the "buffer" of resources,
the bigger the die-off will be. If there is no resource
buffer (all resources get consumed as fast as produced),
then
deaths will happen that exactly match the birth rate (in
terms of biomass consumption (adults need more
biomass than youngsters of just about every species).
That's what normally keeps most species from suffering
an M.C. (And that second link I added is basically about
how we are using up our buffer. Population growth
merely means we are using it up faster each year.) |
|
| |
If humans fail to become the sole exception to the
primary tenet, then we can at the very least expect the
global death rate rise until it matches the birth rate
(again, in terms of biomass consumption). |
|
| |
[Vernon], I think you're nitpicking a bit on basic income.
My point was that basic income will happen as we shift
into the new economy. I'll grant you that there are some
scenarios where basic income itself is not necessary (i.e.
if food and shelter are free) -- but my example outlined
food, not shelter. Even with the freeing of Antarctica
from ice, or wholesale ocean colonization, the planet is
still limited size, so real estate will hold value at least
until land seizes to be relevant (like wholesale
matrixiation, or cost effective FTL) |
|
| |
Even grey goo requires source material, so sand will have
value -- perhaps more value than energy -- unless we
have a physics break through that seems hundreds of
years out, not dozens. |
|
| |
Birthrates have fallen in developed nations as you are
aware. I don't think your point applies -- I'm saying the
technological shift has the potential to provide universal
uplift. I could be wrong on that, but if I'm not, birthrates
will fall worldwide |
|
| |
// And it's funny how all the communists have disappeared.
Where the heck did they go? // |
|
| |
Just a historical note; a lot of them were killed by other
communists, and many of those who weren't did actually
learn some sort of lesson and move on. A large part of
high-brow literature between, say, 1930 and 1950 deals
with this. Douglas Hyde and/or J.B.S. Haldane can give you
a good idea of what it was like inside the head of an actual
card-carrying Communist - and they were both people of
quite a different kind from a typical present-day leftist. |
|
| |
With hindsight, it was sometimes the wrong lesson (e.g.,
"Maybe Trotsky would have been better") - but still, *a*
lesson. |
|
| |
//bring in people who know what they're doing and are
prepared to make hard decisions// |
|
| |
The intersection of those two sets tends to be quite small,
but that's by the way. The more urgent practical
difficulties are
A. Assuming you can find such people, and insert them into
power, how do you stop other people from shooting them
by mistake for politicians, that practice being once
entrenched and
B. How do you stop politicians from disguising themselves
as such people? |
|
| |
Dang, this thread has gotten incredibly interesting
and I'm friggin' slammed this morning. Just got time
to read them and run out the door. Cool stuff. |
|
| |
[theircompetitor], remember what Mark Twain wrote,
"There are lies, damn lies, and statistics". The fall in
birth rates is a statistic. For every year of the past 40
or so, in which 80 million extra babies were born (over
the replacement level), that was a year in which that
constant number equaled a lessened *rate* of births.
The rate is a percentage, see? If each year has a larger
population because of the previous year's extra births,
then that year's constant number of births means the
rate went down a bit. But it is still 80 million extra
humans every year. When *that* number drops, instead
of the "rate", let me know! |
|
| |
Yes but it varies by region, with a correlation to
standard of living |
|
| |
‘Conservatives say if you don't give the rich more money,
they will lose their incentive to invest. As for the poor, they
tell us they've lost all incentive because we've given them
too much money.’ -George Carlin |
|
| |
//(only the question of "when" remains to be
determined)// |
|
| |
To me, the most impressive thing about Malthus was the
accuracy of his "when": |
|
| |
In 1798, he reckoned that the crisis was coming in about 50
years.
1848 was a year of violent revolutions across Europe, at the
end of a decade known as "the hungry forties". |
|
| |
Now, it wasn't a perfect Malthusian crisis, in that the
population didn't crash right back (partly because of such
safety valves as emigration to America) - but still, it's the
most accurate fifty-year prediction I've ever come across. |
|
| |
//Regarding the end of scarcity, there is a "ridiculous!"
aspect
to that// |
|
| |
Have you read Riesmann on this subject (in "The Lonely
Crowd")? He seems to think that there are good
precedents,
and that populations do sometimes just decline without a
catastrophe. |
|
| |
More generally, it's remarkable to me how little this debate
has moved on since the forties and fifties, when the ground
was covered by Riesmann and Galbraith. They got it
wrong, but it least they did a lot of the preliminary
thinking through, which seems to be missing from much of
the contemporary debate on these things. |
|
| |
It's a great quote, Ray. Problem of course is with the
"give".
To be sure concessions won through lobbying and
corporate
welfare are "give". The state didn't "give" any of the
dotcom
guys anything until they were where they are, correct?
(arguably it is doing so now for Musk, but that's another
story). |
|
| |
But inevitably yes, conservatives do find the notion of keeping a larger portion of
what they make being called "giving" offensive. And actually, everyone does when
it comes to their own taxes, as has been shown numerous times including in the
recent scandal where half the world's Davos attendees were shown to be hiding
money in Panama. |
|
| |
As to incentives or lack thereof, the reality is welfare reform in the 90s did work,
and the
opposite effort by the current administration is producing
expected results. |
|
| |
And there's no better discredit of the Carlin thesis then
the trillion dollar in student loans that produced no
meaningful value for those students, but did move their
politics left to the extent that's possible. |
|
| |
I'd agree with all of that. The Carlin quote was for a bit of
levity. The short point though is that anyone left in control
for too long is going to try and stick it to the group not in
control. |
|
| |
Got me thinking about machine evolution vs man
evolution, how they're linked currently and how this link
might change in the future. |
|
| |
Currently, man's evolution hasn't been effected by
machines and machine evolution is of course entirely tied
to man, they currently don't evolve on their own. |
|
| |
At some point though, might man's evolution be effected
by machines? Do we make machines so effective at doing
the things we used to do for ourselves that we lose those
abilities? |
|
| |
On the other hand, people have speculated about
machines taking over their own development and doing a
sort of evolution on their own. I don't see why they might
do this unless they were programmed by us for some
reason. Beyond that I don't see any technical impediment
to machines taking over the job of building and improving
other machines. |
|
| |
1- machines dependent on man (where we are now) |
|
| |
2- man machine co-dependency |
|
| |
3- man dependent on machines |
|
| |
I'm sure people have probably speculated on this before.
Just kind of interesting to think about, but in 5 million
years it's
hard
to believe we'll be walking around looking the same as we
do now just
carrying the iPhone version 600,000. Of course maybe I'm
still thinking with a 21st century mindset about the two
being different. They might just meld such that the lines
between man and machine are blurred enough to make
old lines and divisions between the two obsolete. |
|
| |
" Currently, man's evolution hasn't been effected by machines " |
|
| |
Perhaps not evolution, but the most recent generation doesn't know how to do basic math or start a fire without a machine. And the ability to read text is being replaced by looking at image machines. That looks like the start of something... |
|
| |
Well many of us are already kept alive artificially by
systems based on machines. We can't feed everybody
without modern farming. Without machines most
everybody in Manhattan would die off until the
population reached a number that could be sustained off
of hunting pigeons and squirrels in central park. |
|
| |
Wonder if the whole physical body thing might be going
away. Consciousness on a microchip sort of thing. Might
be a way to live forever without that space constraint
problem. Then you really have the "Yea, but what do you
do with eternity?" problem. Watch Star Wars a billion
times? That would get boring. What does a consciousness
designed to control a physical body with certain
designated tasks, survive, eat, mate, do when it has
those tasks removed? |
|
| |
As for the man/machine hybrid, I'm already partly bionic
having a plastic lens in my eye because the old one was
fried by a laser at work. It's awesome. I hate my "good"
eye. Complete rubbish by comparison. I also have to do
what some would consider a ridiculous amount of
exercise to keep my 55 year old body from looking
disgusting, something it really wants to do. I'd love to just
jump into a new biomechbody and spend that exercise
time
reading every book that was ever written or something.
Plus with these standard issue bodies it seems like you
just start figuring stuff out and it shuts down on you. I
don't need to live forever but 200 years seems like about
the minimum acceptable life span. |
|
| |
Money is power. Knowledge is also power. Therefore money is knowledge. Power corrupts. Therefore knowledge corrupts. Clearly if we want to elect the least corrupt people we should aim for the poor and ignorant. Why yes, I am available... |
|
| |
//Clearly if we want to elect the least corrupt people we
should aim for the poor and ignorant// |
|
| |
Funny, but pretty much how the Cultural Revolution came
about. |
|
| |
Oddly enough, in Peloponnese, the words for "time"
and "money" are the same. In French, though, the
words for "time" and "weather" are the same. I think
that tells you everything you need to know about the
french. |
|
| |
Odd that I have so much time when I have the least amount
of money. |
|
| |