Political Insight: Set Me Straight
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-07-2013, 07:53 AM
RE: Political Insight: Set Me Straight
(21-07-2013 07:03 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(20-07-2013 09:54 PM)DeepThought Wrote:  Trainwreck relies on the good will of others to get by yet he wants to abolish welfare.

Weird... darwinian economics dictates he is a parasite and should die.

No, he is a successful parasite and thrives.

Agreed, though it depends on how you want to define 'thrives'.

Is it having a spot on a subway vent where the warm air comes up, newspapers for shelter, and food in your belly? Or is it something more?

“Forget Jesus, the stars died so you could be born.” - Lawrence M. Krauss
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-07-2013, 08:14 AM
RE: Political Insight: Set Me Straight
(21-07-2013 07:53 AM)DeepThought Wrote:  
(21-07-2013 07:03 AM)Chas Wrote:  No, he is a successful parasite and thrives.

Agreed, though it depends on how you want to define 'thrives'.

Is it having a spot on a subway vent where the warm air comes up, newspapers for shelter, and food in your belly? Or is it something more?

It's the parasitic lifestyle.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
21-07-2013, 12:30 PM
RE: Political Insight: Set Me Straight
Logica Humano, I'd like to try to understand the reasoning behind your position, but I want to make sure that I understand what your position is first.

If I understand correctly, this is a basic summary of your starting position on government/politics. You believe:


One special group of persons should be allowed to make a set of rules that determine what actions all ordinary persons are required to do, are allowed to do, and are prohibited from doing.

This special group of persons may have agents that act to ensure that their rules are followed, and may use violence against ordinary persons if their rules are not followed.

Ordinary persons are not allowed to interact peacefully with other ordinary persons if it goes against the rules set by the special group of persons. Even if all activities are peaceful and honest, and all parties involved are fully informed and consent to these activities, they may not partake in such activities if they are against the rules set by the special group of persons.

An ordinary person can become part of the special group of persons if they get a large enough number of ordinary persons to say they should be a member of this special group of persons.

The special group of persons and their agents may confiscate the property of ordinary persons if they so choose. Ordinary persons may not do this. The special group of persons may choose to give the confiscated property to different persons if they want to.

The special group of persons and their agents may capture, imprison, or kill people if they so choose. Ordinary persons may not do this, and may not resist, even if they have behaved honestly and peacefully in all of their human interactions.


Is that reasonably accurate? If not, please tell me where I made an error, so I may better understand.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-07-2013, 02:51 PM
RE: Political Insight: Set Me Straight
(21-07-2013 12:30 PM)mdak06 Wrote:  Logica Humano, I'd like to try to understand the reasoning behind your position, but I want to make sure that I understand what your position is first.

If you cannot gather my position from reading other threads, then I don't know how else to put it.

(21-07-2013 12:30 PM)mdak06 Wrote:  If I understand correctly, this is a basic summary of your starting position on government/politics. You believe:

Okay, have a go at it.

(21-07-2013 12:30 PM)mdak06 Wrote:  One special group of persons should be allowed to make a set of rules that determine what actions all ordinary persons are required to do, are allowed to do, and are prohibited from doing.

A group of persons elected by the populace to impose regulation on corporations so as to prevent the current abuse of our market.

(21-07-2013 12:30 PM)mdak06 Wrote:  This special group of persons may have agents that act to ensure that their rules are followed, and may use violence against ordinary persons if their rules are not followed.

Where did you gather the necessity for violence? The only time violence would be required is if said "ordinary" individual would respond to the rules in a violent manner.

(21-07-2013 12:30 PM)mdak06 Wrote:  Ordinary persons are not allowed to interact peacefully with other ordinary persons if it goes against the rules set by the special group of persons. Even if all activities are peaceful and honest, and all parties involved are fully informed and consent to these activities, they may not partake in such activities if they are against the rules set by the special group of persons.

Said individuals are electing their governors, so they are effectively getting what they want. If they want change they can petition and have their representatives vote on it. The only reason this system, known as a democratic republic, does not work in the United States is because we enable corporations to pervert federal decisions.

(21-07-2013 12:30 PM)mdak06 Wrote:  An ordinary person can become part of the special group of persons if they get a large enough number of ordinary persons to say they should be a member of this special group of persons.

That is what a democratic society is.

(21-07-2013 12:30 PM)mdak06 Wrote:  The special group of persons and their agents may confiscate the property of ordinary persons if they so choose. Ordinary persons may not do this. The special group of persons may choose to give the confiscated property to different persons if they want to.

Said special group may be able to confiscate the property of citizens if they do not obey the legislation passed by individual's representatives.

(21-07-2013 12:30 PM)mdak06 Wrote:  The special group of persons and their agents may capture, imprison, or kill people if they so choose. Ordinary persons may not do this, and may not resist, even if they have behaved honestly and peacefully in all of their human interactions.

Again, you assume that this group is completely authoritarian. You either fail to grasp what a democratic republic is, or you are being willfully obtuse.

(21-07-2013 12:30 PM)mdak06 Wrote:  Is that reasonably accurate? If not, please tell me where I made an error, so I may better understand.

You made several errors. This is not about the government's position on social issues. This is about their use for economic regulation. The United States is currently facing an economic downturn on par with the Great Depression because of the allowance of crony capitalism. Again, this is not because of the federal government. It is because of the dominating nature that select corporate individuals have over federal decisions.

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Logica Humano's post
21-07-2013, 05:13 PM
RE: Political Insight: Set Me Straight
<snip>

(21-07-2013 12:30 PM)mdak06 Wrote:  One special group of persons should be allowed to make a set of rules that determine what actions all ordinary persons are required to do, are allowed to do, and are prohibited from doing.
(21-07-2013 02:51 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  A group of persons elected by the populace to impose regulation on corporations so as to prevent the current abuse of our market.

What justification exists to give this special group of persons powers that other people do not have?

(21-07-2013 12:30 PM)mdak06 Wrote:  This special group of persons may have agents that act to ensure that their rules are followed, and may use violence against ordinary persons if their rules are not followed.
(21-07-2013 02:51 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  Where did you gather the necessity for violence? The only time violence would be required is if said "ordinary" individual would respond to the rules in a violent manner.

If someone does not comply with the rules (laws), then at some point there will be violence (to clarify, physical force or the threat of physical force) used. If a person complies with the rules, no violence is used. A person need not use violence themselves in order to fail to comply with rules.

(21-07-2013 12:30 PM)mdak06 Wrote:  Ordinary persons are not allowed to interact peacefully with other ordinary persons if it goes against the rules set by the special group of persons. Even if all activities are peaceful and honest, and all parties involved are fully informed and consent to these activities, they may not partake in such activities if they are against the rules set by the special group of persons.
(21-07-2013 02:51 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  Said individuals are electing their governors, so they are effectively getting what they want. If they want change they can petition and have their representatives vote on it. The only reason this system, known as a democratic republic, does not work in the United States is because we enable corporations to pervert federal decisions.

Why does electing someone give that person the power to prevent people from peacefully interacting with other people? Democracy is the "how," and I understand that, but I want to know the "why."

(21-07-2013 12:30 PM)mdak06 Wrote:  An ordinary person can become part of the special group of persons if they get a large enough number of ordinary persons to say they should be a member of this special group of persons.
(21-07-2013 02:51 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  That is what a democratic society is.

Yes. The fact that "it's a democratic society" provides no justification for why it is correct to allow those people to prohibit peaceful interactions with others.

<snip>

(21-07-2013 12:30 PM)mdak06 Wrote:  Is that reasonably accurate? If not, please tell me where I made an error, so I may better understand.
(21-07-2013 02:51 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  You made several errors. This is not about the government's position on social issues. This is about their use for economic regulation. The United States is currently facing an economic downturn on par with the Great Depression because of the allowance of crony capitalism. Again, this is not because of the federal government. It is because of the dominating nature that select corporate individuals have over federal decisions.

What I'm trying to understand is why "we live in a democratic society" justifies physical coercion (or the threat of it) against others who are not harming others, persons who are peacefully and honestly interacting with other people with the informed consent of all parties involved. It doesn't matter whether the action is a "social" action or an "economic" action. Some actions are a combination of both.

Corporations have used the coercive ability of government to their advantage, and I wholeheartedly disagree with this. What I don't understand is why non-corporations should be able to coerce people in a similar way that corporations do (via government).

If I go down the street and take money from someone and give it to a person in need, that's theft, even though I might be doing something "for a good cause." If I get five, or fifty, or 500 of my buddies to come with me, it's still theft. Why does it become ok when a majority of the population (or their representatives) says so?

It's a different story if someone initiates physical coercion against another. Self-defense is entirely appropriate. But why is the coercion suddenly become ok if people simply vote on it?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-07-2013, 05:50 PM
RE: Political Insight: Set Me Straight
(21-07-2013 05:13 PM)mdak06 Wrote:  What justification exists to give this special group of persons powers that other people do not have?

I didn't provide a justification because you didn't ask for one. Every social animal produces a leader for its collective in order to survive. It is evolutionary advantageous for our species to appoint a leader. Even if one is able to strip our current form of government away, another form would emerge, separate states would revert to their own constitutions, or tribal systems would emerge.

It is simply part of our evolution, and so far it has proven to be beneficial.

(21-07-2013 05:13 PM)mdak06 Wrote:  If someone does not comply with the rules (laws), then at some point there will be violence (to clarify, physical force or the threat of physical force) used. If a person complies with the rules, no violence is used. A person need not use violence themselves in order to fail to comply with rules.

No, the federal entity confronts the individual who broke the law first. If the individual continues to refuse comply, more rights are stripped away until either the individual is forced to comply, or becomes dangerous to every other individual. Provide me with statistics demonstrating how foreclosures on houses, for example, resulted in a violent confrontation.

(21-07-2013 05:13 PM)mdak06 Wrote:  Why does electing someone give that person the power to prevent people from peacefully interacting with other people? Democracy is the "how," and I understand that, but I want to know the "why."

It is a social contract that we agree to and/or accept. I just said so above.

(21-07-2013 05:13 PM)mdak06 Wrote:  Yes. The fact that "it's a democratic society" provides no justification for why it is correct to allow those people to prohibit peaceful interactions with others.

You asked what I believe. You never asked for justification. And, again, you have yet to provide an example of a non-peaceful confrontation.

(21-07-2013 05:13 PM)mdak06 Wrote:  What I'm trying to understand is why "we live in a democratic society" justifies physical coercion (or the threat of it) against others who are not harming others, persons who are peacefully and honestly interacting with other people with the informed consent of all parties involved. It doesn't matter whether the action is a "social" action or an "economic" action. Some actions are a combination of both.

You have asked this question multiple times as though it is some profound realization. Again, what do you mean by physical coercion? Give me an example.

(21-07-2013 05:13 PM)mdak06 Wrote:  Corporations have used the coercive ability of government to their advantage, and I wholeheartedly disagree with this. What I don't understand is why non-corporations should be able to coerce people in a similar way that corporations do (via government).

Because the design of the government is to benefit the public as opposed to private interest. The issue is how the economic system affects the federal system. The U.S' is a prime example of the libertarian/anarcho-capitalist extreme.

The top libertarian "think-tanks" are funded by David Koch, that ought to explain something right there.

(21-07-2013 05:13 PM)mdak06 Wrote:  If I go down the street and take money from someone and give it to a person in need, that's theft, even though I might be doing something "for a good cause." If I get five, or fifty, or 500 of my buddies to come with me, it's still theft. Why does it become ok when a majority of the population (or their representatives) says so?

As I said before. It is a social contract in which the collective agrees or accepts that they owe a portion of their income for collective benefits. Federal law enforcement, fire fighting, etc. The uses of these services are immeasurable, so one must resort to income tax to properly fund these institutions as opposed to consumer taxes.

(21-07-2013 05:13 PM)mdak06 Wrote:  It's a different story if someone initiates physical coercion against another. Self-defense is entirely appropriate. But why is the coercion suddenly become ok if people simply vote on it?

Because it is a consensual social contract. It seems you know little about how social animals operate and what a social contract actually is.

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Logica Humano's post
15-09-2013, 04:24 PM
RE: Political Insight: Set Me Straight
@Logica Humano

Quote:A group of persons elected by the populace to impose regulation on corporations so as to prevent the current abuse of our market.

If I start baking cookies that I sell out of my house, I'm still a person, an individual, right? If I want to call my venture “Frank's bakery”, and file a d.b.a. (ie schedule c), I'm still a person, right? If I tick the 'LLC' entity box instead of the 'DBA', am I still a person? What if I tick 'S-Corp', or 'C-Corp'? If I'm still the same person baking cookies that I sell out of my house, am I still an individual? Or is a 'corporation' something other than individuals (ie shareholders)?

I maintain that I am STILL a person, and what entity box I check is irrelevant. I'm still baking cookies in my oven and selling them out of my home. So, if a politician passes regulation requiring everybody selling cookies to put the calorie count on it, are you not regulating me, as an individual? If, somehow you're regulating some other “creature”, namely a corporation, tell me what does that creature, the corporation, look like? What color is it?

Quote:Where did you gather the necessity for violence? The only time violence would be required is if said "ordinary" individual would respond to the rules in a violent manner.

Really? So if I disagree with your rules and refuse to put the calorie count on my cookies, what happens to me? I'll probably get a fine and if I continue to resist, eventually a court order, and if I continue to resist, a warrant for my arrest, and if I continue to resist, the police will tase me or shoot me for resisting arrest. That's not violence? Violence is defined as the use of “rough or injurious physical force”. “Physical” means relating to matter; some material object acting upon another. So how do you argue that a taser barb in my chest or a bullet in my leg is not “violence”?

Note that I'm not arguing whether or not I want all bakeries to put a calorie count on their goods. I actually do. And I want to find a way to apply non-physical coercion (ie persuasion) to get bakeries to do it. So assuming you do too, we both agree on the GOAL, the ONLY thing we disagree on is IF violence should be used to achieve that goal.

My experience is that those who call themselves “liberal” actually are VERY violent, and no matter what the problem, violence is always the first solution. They just trick themselves into thinking that if they're not holding the gun themselves, it's not violence. They will appoint and pay (through taxes) politicians and police to initiate violence on their behalf, and somehow convince themselves that because the police are holding the gun, it's not violence. But by that definition nothing the SS did was violent either. And if I hire a hitman to kill my wife, that's not violence either.

Quote:That is Pacifism, not Libertarianism. Libertarianism is the foolish belief that deregulation would actually result in a better society, even though that is demonstrably false.

Please provide a source. According to the dictionary, wikipedia, and every other source I've seen, the definition of “Libertarian” is simply that you adhere to the non-aggression principle, namely you reject using violence to coerce people into doing things against their will. There's no mention of regulation in any definition I've seen. In fact, libertarianism is based on the belief that all individuals are equal and that belonging to a group, such as shareholders, doesn't give you super-human rights. You're still just a person. If you were at a libertarian meetup you'd see that it has nothing to do with where you sit on the political spectrum. Some are far right, deeply religious and conservative. Others, like myself, identify as 'left', and focus on achieving a society that is equal and eliminates poverty. The only thing we all have in common is that we reject using violence to achieve our goals.

Quote:No, corporations currently own your government. Corporations are, effectively, your government.

YES!!! Now we're in agreement. When the government has the power to pick winners and losers it's unavoidable that those who are already winning and already have the most power will use that power to get government to tip the scaled even MORE in their favor. This is why, as Milton Friedman pointed out, every monopoly in recent human history, except DeBeers, came about through special government privilege.

To solve this problem, the US Constitution states the Federal government has a small list of enumerated powers, all of which are purely DEFENSIVE, none of which allow the government to initiate force except, only to use force to deflect the initiation of force against the people, either external (ie military), or internal (ie freedom of speech, etc.). Only when the US started abandoning that system and letting the government pick winners and losers did we see such a concentration of power. So, why are you arguing that the solution is to give the government MORE power to pick winners and losers?

Quote: I invite you to move to Denmark, the nation that has the largest functioning social government. It has the most regulation, but also the highest happiness ratings, the best healthcare, the best welfare, the best workers rights, and one of the strongest economies.

In Denmark the maximum corporate income tax rate is 24%. In the US it is 51%. AND, it is also taxed as income tax when the profits are distributed, unlike in Denmark. The personal income tax rate in Denmark is LESS progressive than it is in the US. According to the OECD the U.S. "has the most progressive tax system and collects the largest share of taxes from the richest 10% of the population”, and that progressive taxation is relatively ineffective at achieving equality (their systems are "significantly more efficient than tax systems at reducing inequality, as well as more effective"). Here are the official OECD statistics: https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-4QJRu...urden.jpg . See also page 8 of the OECD report: http://www.oecd.org/eco/public-finance/49417295.pdf

As far as regulation, all the sources I've seen comparing regulation concluded Denmark has LESS regulation than the US. Show me where you've read the opposite, please.

Quote:It is a social contract that we agree to and/or accept

This is ridiculous. The US, along with North Korea and Cuba, are the ONLY countries that define 'social contract' as being a life-long obligation to fund and obey the government regardless of where you live. In every other country, like Denmark, or even China, if you don't like the government or think your taxes are too high, you're free to leave. No strings attached. No need to renounce your citizenship and become a stateless refugee. No exit tax. If the Danes don't like their taxes, they can just move to Switzerland and they won't even have to pay any income tax (they can negotiate a fixed tax payment). All the defenders of the US system, like those in N Korea and Cuba, say that it's a “social contract” that I accepted. Really? When did I “agree” where to be born? Thousands of Americans try to leave the US each year but are stopped because the US taxation is based on where you're born—not where you live—and has no connection to services the government provides—even if you never set foot on US soil you're still duty bound to pay the US for life. It's ABSURD to say that we accepted some social contract when we decided where to be born.

And one other fact that everyone on your side of the argument refuses to accept: The one and only country in the world where the poorest in society (the bottom 20%) make more than half the median income (ie they've eliminated poverty) is Switzerland. Switzerland is also unique because tax evasion is not a crime. Nobody goes to jail or faces force for refusing to pay taxes. And in some cantons (States) you can negotiate a fixed tax based on the value of your home, without ever disclosing your income. They also have no homeless, despite having no welfare program at either the Federal or Canton level. Welfare in Switzerland is a voluntary system handled by communities. And numerous 3rd party researchers have proven that Switzerland's non-violent system is actually the most effective. Yet, every time I point this out, my experience is you guys go ballistic, and reject the Swiss system purely because it doesn't use violence, and would rather have a less efficient system, with greater poverty, if violence were used. Will you be different? Will you acknowledge that, given they have no natural resources and accomplished their social objectives through government policy, we should seriously consider their non-violent policy since it's working so much better than our violent one?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-09-2013, 07:25 PM
RE: Political Insight: Set Me Straight
How are they different in action?

"choosing between democrat or republican is like choosing between me and my brother" Raul Castro.

Anyone that believes there is a difference in action between the two "sides" is an american and completely stupid. Nobody that lives outside america believes or sees any difference.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: