Politics
- Started
- Last post
- 33,755 Responses
- ********0
http://breckshire.wordpress.com/…
here ya go better. you may disagree if youre inclined, but it makes logical sense in a modern society
- ********0
"So youre saying no one can say what is a right or isnt. "
That's exactly what I saying. It's all relative and always changing.
There was no idea right to free speech throughout most of history. It was only with the emergence of liberalism a few hundred years ago that it became acceptable.
- yes rights are man made. rule is survival of fittest. i know that i skipped over that thinkign we were talking in context of modern society********
- that was the context in which i asked the question of blue and made my statement on greece edu comment********
- and if the context your talkign about is applied to the greece edu, then there isnt such thigns as rights so they would be wrong********
- wrong for declaring such things. just a lot of whining and blah blah********
- I think you misunderstood. I'm not saying the lack of any natural rights means we shouldn't have any.********
- People as a society should figure that out for themselves.********
- One thing that is worth mentioning is that in the UK, for instance, these policies really don't have much support********
- The conservatives only got 35% of the vote in the last election********
- They formed a coalition with the Liberals, but the Libs had run their whole campaign saying they opposed raising student fees********
- fees. Then when they got into government they suddenly reversed.********
- and how would one claim edu as a natural right? yea i probably am missing what your saying********
- So it is the elites forcing the policies on people whether they want them or not********
- yea fuck the UK gov. most governments in general. they have forgotten there places********
- There's no natural rights, but people should be able to decide these things and not a few people in government********
- but natural rights are fundamental for a proper modern society. if not its jsut obligarchy********
- I just can't really go along with the "natural" part...that seems to imply God came down from heaven and made the decision********
- Yes, we need rights, but we can decide what they are********
- yes rights are man made. rule is survival of fittest. i know that i skipped over that thinkign we were talking in context of modern society
- ********0
yea if theres no natural rights of the people, then the point of government wouldn't be to protect mans rights. Now its just an obligarchy ran by either party majority. Both just rulers fighting for power over vote and not by blood. In that sense then yea lets the greecers whine and moan about rights. They have none but the ones given to them by their leaders. Theyre jsut whining becuase they don't liek the current ones and now will call for the other team to rule them next ffew years... pretty good game the rulers got
- you dont have to beleive in god for natural rights, its the philosphy theyre defined in that breckshire article.********
- suggest as "creator" whether that creator be random chance or flying spaghetti monster********
- life, liberty, puruit of happiness, property, those simplist things...if it doesnt infringe on others********
- The Greeks and Romans did democracy without the concept of natural rights.TheBlueOne
- you dont have to beleive in god for natural rights, its the philosphy theyre defined in that breckshire article.
- ********0
Think of it this way. If you were starting a business, is there some set in stone way you need to structure and run things?
Not really, right? All we really have are customs, which are based on trial and error over time. But if there was some new approach someone came up with that produced a better result, people might switch to it.
So I think a better principle is not this idea of "natural rights" but simply whatever produces the best outcome.
- and yea i liek to base ideas off set stones. which is philosophies, reason logic.********
- if 2+2 =4 then 2+2 cant equal 5, instead of letting peopel decide wether it can or not********
- and i dont prescribe to one philosophy for all instances... im not that kind of fundamentalist, i realize context and relativities********
- context and relativites********
- and yea i liek to base ideas off set stones. which is philosophies, reason logic.
- ********0
but that type of mentality produces contradictions. and leads to the idea that a government gives people the the rights they choose. say for instance you think you have a right like edu. you can think its your right as until its taken away. which leads to the point of government is to assign rights by majority vote. where as im talking abotu declaration of independance stuff. That all men are created equal with inalienable right such as life liberty and the pursuit of happiness without infringing on others rights. those are static rights that cant be changed. The basic rights needed that don't impose on anyone else to live peacefully with everyone. A solution to tribal dictatorships. And in order to protect these rights a government is formed with authority of force. And gov powers are limited to... repeating the article here. ...
Thats where i am coming from rights and privileges. I don't believe to be at the whim of an electorate that decides my rights. And if a government with sole authority to decide between disagreeing parties on what is a right and what isnt, is an obligarchy. A dictatorship by election and not blood. And in this community there is no such things as rights but what the rulers declare as rights.
If you think that is better the gov is the rights holders approach is better then so be it. Wether it ends up being the right choice or wrong one is up to to decide.
In the case of the greece, you should be able to see why i suggest it was a privilege and not a right. If people see it your way then greece peopel have no right to unless it gets voted in, but in this case its voted out so no they don't have a right to their edu business. They can try to petition for a right back to it if they like. From both perspectives theyre just talking out of there asses. And i think blue understood that and decided not answering the question looks better.
- Naw, he probably just had better things to do than try to argue with you:)********
- could be. the probability of possible things is what gives the non-response its power********
- makes me have to give him the credit of doubt that he just missed it. which i will.********
- i'd liek to think he ran off proving he had no answer but one cant choose the probability that fits what they want********
- Naw, he probably just had better things to do than try to argue with you:)
- ********0
I think you are living under the illusion that we aren't always at the mercy of the government. The Constitution, Bill of Rights, etc, don't guarantee anything. The "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" (whatever that means, it's kind of vague isn't it?) part can easily be taken away by an authoritarian government too. Some might argue that Bush took away some of that with the extremist laws he passed following 9-11.
The government could easily rewrite the Constitution too. The only thing stopping it from doing these things is...the willingness of people to let it happen. So again, I think you end up at the view I expressed earlier...what people demand, they will get. What they don't will be taken away.
That isn't an argument for some kind of unlimited welfare state. But I don't think it makes sense to arbitrarily limit it either. It's all about whatever creates the best outcome. And especially in a democracy, that will lean in the direction of providing a better standard of living, and better human rights, because that's what people want.
- not an illusion an ideology. yes todays stuff is far from the original ideology. i see it but i dont have to accept it as better.********
- the ideology with government being created to uphold the basic rights, vs gov creating all rights********
- and a gov creatign all rights doesnt have to be a welfare state it could be ran much many ways********
- however all progress is probably at the cost of a minority, much like us did with slaves. or jsut collapses.********
- and the life liberty pursuit of happiness i don't think is to vague. think of it like a codec********
- oh and the ideology i prescribe to the gov works for us not the other way around. yes today we are there bitch********
- but then again individually im not under the will of anyone. they can try to impose it and we'll see what happens. collectively we're bitches********
- collectively we're bitches********
- Speak for yourself:D********
- I know where you're coming from, it's the conservative originalist school of thinking********
- But consider maybe that it's not the be all, end all of things********
- ha its more aristotle then conservative. and i know its not the end all it goes in cycles********
- much liek the seasons. i'd jsut liek to try to get peopel to extend summer a little longer********
- In American politics, it's the same view that most conservatives have********
- yea i get it but the conservative term has much more negativeness connected to it. just didnt want to pigeonhole it********
- teammates will here conservative and instantly shut out the ideas. sometimes to give credit to individuals to prevent the collective mantality********
- prevent the collective mentality. to ignore there enemies ideas********
- not an illusion an ideology. yes todays stuff is far from the original ideology. i see it but i dont have to accept it as better.
- ********0
Bush sucked. He was an idiot but i commend him on seemingly standing up for what he believed, wether it was retarded. Its a trait that is disappearing these days, especially in design with design by committee. No ones wants to voice what they think they want to fit in...see design related thread!
On your last paragraph ". And especially in a democracy, that will lean in the direction of providing a better standard of living, and better human rights, because that's what people want." The question is who decides those rights and gets them. Or who decides standard of living. Say a corporation buys out congress to vote to make sure employees cant ask for raises. Or unions cut deals and gov says ok. The standard of living is raised for people at the cost of screwing a few. It gets really rough when the wants of the majority fuck the minority. Leading to the ridiculous mob rule, and the king is dead long live the king mentality.
You don't have to agree with me jsut think about, make up situations in your head to test the theories, place yourself in other situations and check your feelings. Run the logic out and play with it for awhile. Have fun with it, run new scenarios, variables and jsut do your own check and measures honestly.
- i do appreciate back and forth without insult, and possibly actual intention of trying to understand one another then posturing********
- posturing********
- and always interesting to see how calm discussion with no team bias makes the team supporters leave. no entertainment value********
- entertainment value********
- not very successful all the while fox gets it and picks up ratings********
- The Taliban are standing up for what they believe in. So are the Iranians. Do you commend them?Josev
- of course i do josev. Doesnt mean i agree with them. theyd be more of a joke if there beliefs were by majority consensus********
- consensus.********
- i do appreciate back and forth without insult, and possibly actual intention of trying to understand one another then posturing
- ********0
I think the problem I have is that in a world where people have no social safety net or public investment at all, the natural outcome is that the people who have more consolidate their power, and the people who don't fall further and further behind.
That was the situation around the turn of the century (100 years old) when America was industrializing and people were pissed that they, and their wives and kids, were stuck working in what were basically slave labor conditions in factories. Ideas like socialism and anarchism were actually much more mainstream in America during that time, because they were seen as a solution to the horrible lives people were stuck leading.
And so we got some measures like progressive income tax and social security in response to that. And went on to 50 years of being the most prosperous country in the world.
So in other words, the whole "originalist" argument you're describing might sound appealing because of its simplicity, but its already been shown as a failure. I guess you could argue that it's worth doing for its own ideological sake, but it's hard to see how it produces any kind of lasting stability.
- and secuirty net goes with security vs freedom cant have both. best to find a sustainable balance. educated voters needed for that********
- needed for that********
- Thats what I mean, find the right balance. But it also creates freedom to give people more security.********
- but you are against public education, deathboy. How will voters become educated?DrBombay
- It is a privilege and not a right is what you said.DrBombay
- and secuirty net goes with security vs freedom cant have both. best to find a sustainable balance. educated voters needed for that
- ********0
Bu those 50 years are catching up to us with flawed logic on the social concepts. much liek the quotes in that blog post at the end. And the orginialist concept i think has failed simply because of the failure of governments to maintain certain rights and give favor to those who are rich...generalizing without actual instances of course. And not denying other variables of course.
I do see how the rich can make slave labor out of people. I also see the rich and the poor as remoras and sharks. A remora may want to be a shark but genetics and life jsut didnt let them. Hopefully both work to better each others lives. They need each other. The rich cant make money if they have no one to run there business or buy from them. There is a natural balance to it. But the balance gets distorted through special treatment by the governments interest in private affairs. It is impossible to keep a natural balance when they do that. I also get its human nature to be greedy, envious power hungry and such things amongst different individuals which makes a balance hard to keep. But thats where education in the philosophies can keep things more balanced with educated voters. And voters won't let politicians pander to there individual greed. People need to conquer there own desires first to see clear. And edu can help that or hinder it depending on curriculum.
“Great nations rise and fall. The people go from bondage to spiritual truth, to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back again to bondage.
“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations has been 200 years. “
There is no perfect solution. The ideology I follow and practice is what i find as the best solution to the turmoil. I also except the fact that perhaps the rise and fall of civilizations is purely just cycles like seasons, and it jsut will happen. And even may be necessary for growth. The creation/destruction that continually happens to debase stagnation. Perhaps we need a few more generations of chaos and war to create a single nation that can either rise or fall and to form humans more into ants then individuals. Could be the natural process. Largest gang working together will crush an individual.
I just try my logic as those before me that i bite words and knowledge from. And am comforted with the knowledge that at least i wont have to suffer at the worst of times.... hopefully. Ill jsut keep spitting my spit and see what happens
- ********0
You know what's interesting though? Social democracy or social liberalism has produced by far the best living conditions for humans in the history of the world. In a way it's strange that American conservatives spend so much time dissing it and assuming they know a better way.
Of course, this is an appealing argument for people. We used to do things the right way, and then we went off course. Think about the Bible and the idea of original sin. Doesn't mean it's true though. It just sounds better than, yeah we were fuck ups then, we're fuck ups now, and its going to take some work:)
To be fair, the constitutionalist, minimalist approach to government probably worked pretty well when we were an agrarian society. If you own your own farm, and spend your days milking cows, plowing fields, and chopping heads off chickens, what do you need any government programs for? However once you talk about any sort of advanced society, you do need them.
And in a way I think that's what social liberalism is, a way of making industrial society livable. It may be that society changes again as we move more into the information age and more towards (my guess will be) a freelance, decentralized, entrepeneurial approach rather than a top-down corporate one.
- cant argue with that jefferson liked the ideas of farmers. social democracy is much liek what they did with slave labor.********
- the majoirty gets the benefit at the sacrifices of others. you dont get a good rate or progression equal to that with sacrifices********
- sacrifices. if we stayed true with jefferson ideology we may have been overun by germans in ww2.********
- there is merits of socialized democracies but you have to see both sides. and the general populace will always be at the whim of the rulers********
- whim of the rulers. i prefer individualism ideals to collective ones. they have different advantages********
- have you ever read a brave new world? a great book. also huxleys island is awesome********
- i actually prefer island over BNW. But BNW is more famous probably because of orwell********
- but i only knock collectiveist political practices becuase they don't sync up with my ideology. i cant knock someone whos chooses one or the other********
- chooses one or the other and clearly sees both as they are. i jsut dont liek peoples illusions of one or the other********
- how they try to have there cake and eat it to ignoring all logic.********
- and i just relaized i may be taking your social liberalism/democracy as defined by peopel i know and not you********
- my bad. i really don't know how you define it, wether it be textbook or your twist with personal ideology********
- Brave New World was Huxley and not Orwell, right?********
- And you have to realize there are many variations on these kinds of beliefs********
- For instance, Orwell wrote against totalitarianism, but he was a left-wing Socialist and even fought in the Anarchist Revolution in Spain.********
- Revolution in Spain.********
- Socialism isn't equivalent to tyrannical government********
- More tyrannical than no government maybe, but like I said you gotta find a balance:)********
- i realize there are many forms of beliefs for sure. it is all about a balance. im for more than others but i value all others********
- cant argue with that jefferson liked the ideas of farmers. social democracy is much liek what they did with slave labor.
- ********0
Tax cut plan passes
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/20…
"The tax-cut plan extends through 2012 all Bush-era tax reductions on income, capital gains and dividends. It continues expanded unemployment insurance benefits through 2011, cuts payroll taxes by 2 percentage points during 2011 and lets businesses write off 100 percent of capital investments between Sept. 9, 2010, and Dec. 31, 2011."
That's interesting, I didn't know about the 100% write off. So as a freelancer, does that mean you can deduct the full value of a new Macbook from your taxes?:)
- you can if you have a clever attorney********
- accountantBattleAxe
- you can if you have a clever attorney
- luckyorphan0
Why the "lazy jobless" myth persists
We're asked to believe that the 15 million jobless Americans are all George Costanzas
http://www.salon.com/news/opinio…"The idea is that unemployment has nothing to do with structural economic forces or rigged public policies and everything to do with individual motivation. Yes, we're asked to believe that the 15 million jobless Americans are all George Costanzas -- parasitic loafers occasionally pretending to seek work as latex salesmen, but really just aiming to decompress on a refrigerator-equipped recliner during a lifelong Summer of George.
Of course, this storyline makes no sense. From liberal Paul Krugman to archconservative Alan Greenspan, economists agree that joblessness is not caused by unemployment benefits. With five applicants for every one job opening, the overarching problem is a lack of available positions -- not a dearth of personal initiative."
- luckyorphan0
Something to file under "This is news?":
Fox News viewers are much more likely than others to believe false information about American politics, a new study concludes.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/20…The study, conducted by the University of Maryland, judged how likely consumers of various news outlets and publications were to believe misinformation about a wide range of political issues. Overall, 90% of respondents said they felt they had heard false information being given to them during the 2010 election campaign. However, while consumers of just about every news outlet believed some information that was false, the study found that Fox News viewers, regardless of political information, were "significantly more likely" to believe that:
--Most economists estimate the stimulus caused job losses (12 points more likely)
--Most economists have estimated the health care law will worsen the deficit (31 points)
--The economy is getting worse (26 points)
--Most scientists do not agree that climate change is occurring (30 points)
--The stimulus legislation did not include any tax cuts (14 points)
--Their own income taxes have gone up (14 points)
Story continues below
Advertisement--The auto bailout only occurred under Obama (13 points)
--When TARP came up for a vote most Republicans opposed it (12 points)
--And that it is not clear that Obama was born in the United States (31 points)
In addition, the study said, increased viewership of Fox News led to increased belief in these false stories.
- 74LEO0
Look out Philly they are coming to South Broad street to protest on Monday!
- ********0
- Jeez...not even the right font.luckyorphan
- O'bummer...that's fucking gold. You're a genius mateBusterBoy
- ********0
Austrian, 63, fined £700 after Muslim neighbours claimed his yodelling mocked call to prayer
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/…how fucking ridiculous
- hey look everyone, chilamont is back with more racist posts...
shocker!!!!Ramanisky2 - in the US you cant yodel past 8:pm********
- hey look everyone, chilamont is back with more racist posts...
- ********0
- ********0
The Muslims are coming for you chilamont. Mexicans too
- yup********
- yep straight in front of my rifle sights********
- yup
- ********0
Be afraid. Soon you will be speaking a cross between Spanish and Arabic.
- So it'll basically be 15th Century Spain then?TheBlueOne
- kgvs720
I watched PBS Frontline's The Meth Epidemic a pretty much opened my eyes. The system of government in the United States is bought out. Senate, bought out, House bought out. May be I am being pessimistic, but it really seems that laws and acts are not written in the interest of the people, but in corporate interests.
In 2010, there are 12,488 registered lobbyists and $2.61 billion were spent in lobbying*. Let's say that there are 11,235 people between members of congress and their staff (535 members of congress and a wild guess of 20 people employed by each senator or house representative, IDK the number, it may be higher) That's pretty much a little over one lobbyist per person and around $232,000 spent lobbying congress; per person.
Let's say that instead of 20 staff members, it's 100 people employed per member of congress. The number of staff plus members of congress is 54,035. Approximately $48,000 is spent lobbying per official member of congress and staff. Who knows what else is going on behind the curtains, pretty disturbing.
*http://www.opensecrets.org/lobb...
- * http://www.opensecre…kgvs72
- What did this have to do with meth?********
- They spend billions on 'lobbying' and 'enforcement' yet the drug problem is out of control********
- Thanks Dodecahedron>kgvs72
- Watch the documentary and you will understand why we still have a problem with Meth.kgvs72
