Admiral Bone to Pick
Banned
I feel kind of bad. I got into one of those "debate half a dozen people at once" moments in an NPD thread and it wasn't fun. You're the man Gaborn.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2011: Of Weiners, Boehners, Santorum, and Teabags
- Thread starter PantherLotus
- Start date
- Status
TacticalFox88
Banned
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:S.RES.85:Gaborn said:
He did. With a unanimous vote at that....in the Senate of all places.
Mortrialus
Banned
Gaborn said:
No. Ron Paul's position has very clearly been "Sure, states imposing gay sodomy laws are silly, but god damnmit it is their right to impose them on you." He very clearly cares more about state rights to act as tyranny rather than human rights.
Just to reiterate, the issue I'm bringing up about Ron Paul are his absolutely disastrous views on Separation of Church and State. I'm very convinced that they will have a direct negative impact on my life as the damage Bush did to the Separation of Church and state already has and to many others. You aren't addressing that in the slightest.
lordfroakie
Member
Oblivion said:
Just thought of a new nickname for you Mr.Perry: Prick Perry
TacticalFox88 said:
Where does that authorize the use of military force? As well, you do know that for a bill to become a law it has to pass both congressional bodies and be signed by the President, right?
Mortrialus
Banned
vectorman06 said:Just thought of a new nickname for you Mr.Perry: Prick Perry
Prick Error works as well.
empty vessel
Member
Gaborn said:
I don't get to compliment you often, so I am happy to report that I think this is a perfectly reasonable response (although we obviously will disagree substantially about what regulations are necessary).
TacticalFox88
Banned
You argue that he went against the wishes of Congress. If Congress REALLY wanted to stop him they would've stopped funding the war bringing the Libya operation to a screeching halt.Gaborn said:
TacticalFox88 said:
That was a non-binding resolution in support of the no-fly zone, it didn't authorize direct military force. I think you want S. J. Res 20 instead.
Oblivion said:
Lord knows I'm no fan of any of the GOP candidates, but this is a sensationalist headline.
The exact quote was
He didn't really specify corporate taxation. It sure as hell might have been implied, but the headline puts words in his mouth. A more accurate description of the quote would have been "Perry compares America's regulatory and tax climate to pre CRA America."
Again, I'm no Perry fan, but we on the left need to take the high road when it comes to these kinds of news stories.
Gaborn said:
I don't believe that I am misunderstanding the libertarian view. In fact, I think libertarians don't really understand their own view, and that it is such a ridged ideology that it is hard to not find something in opposition to it's very nature.
The basis of libertarian ideology as I understand it is 'the free market has the answer'. It's 100% darwinian in that companies that fail to improve the human condition will become extinct, and that that dynamic should also be extended to states. If I don't like 'doctor assisted suicide' I can leave Oregon and ignore what's happening over there, if enough people start leaving, they may reconsider the practice, or the state dies. Survival of the fittest.
It's an interesting concept, that the strong survive and the weak fail. And it might work if we were insects, or maybe even turtles - but 'survival of the fittest' is succumbing to it's own weaknesses. Mammals have an increased capacity for being social, no longer are the only reason to be social for attracting a mate to reproduce, mammals have weak young, and they take care of their young - often in organized social groups. As we move up to primates the young are even more defenseless and individuals of the group often can not survive for long without interacting with other members. Get to humans and we are hopeless - an infant will die in a day or so, and needs constant supervision for their first thousand, even then they are not likely to survive unless they get even more attention. Years are invested into offspring. Knowledge such as being able to prepare food by use of fire, or being able to build the most basic of tools in order to acquire food - or even what is edible or not is all learned by members of a society. An individual human has no chance of survival on its own until they are greatly educated by other humans.
You wonder why I bring this up, it's easy to understand - in life, especially in human life - survival of the fittest is no longer the law. Survival of the fittest has failed to shared social responsibility. The more social a species is, the greater it's chances of survival are - look how great we have been doing, and we keep doing better and becoming more productive as our ability to communicate and our ability to create increasingly complex societies improve. This reminds me of what happened to the libertarian's utopia. It's in the past. As time progresses we have created all sorts of social infrastructures into our government, societies have gotten larger, governments have gotten larger and more regulatory, and libertarians want to go back to how things were, because the free market aka survival of the fittest knows best. You know what, just like survival of the fittest the free market has been losing to itself. The public (not limited to the US) has spoken, we want to be more social, we want larger government, it improves life for all humans - when we start looking back to the free market, unregulated capitalism, we are doing ourselves a great disservice, it lost in the realm of public thought for good reason - it was hurting people.
I see very few benefits to decentralizing the power, especially in this day and age - could you elaborate as to why the power to choose to enforce civil rights should be decentralized? Enforcing civil rights is the right thing to do, in fact, it's such the right thing to do that EVERY country should enforce something like it.
Only when the wrong laws are put into effect due to miseducation do we need your laboratory. I don't need Oregon to test the waters with doctor assisted suicide to know that it should be legal everywhere - US or otherwise. I don't need Massachusetts to test to see if allowing two people of the same gender who love each other to get married will ruin society, and I certainly don't need California to test to see if people with glaucoma get some sort of ease from their discomfort by smoking a bowl of weed.
Test beds for democracy. *shakes head*
TacticalFox88 said:
It is not for congress to STOP Obama, it is Obama's responsibility, when he pledged to defend and uphold the Constitution to uphold it by following the separation of powers. You are absolutely right that Congress SHOULD cut funding until and unless Obama actually seeks and receives their explicit authorization to use military force but lacking such authorization I do not believe this action is was or will be consistent with US law.
ivedoneyourmom said:
This is not the most promising start a post could have.
That is not the "basis of libertarian ideology" The basis of libertarian ideology would be that generally a freer society is going to lead to more positive outcomes, but just as the Constitution is not a suicide pact libertarianism is not inherently hostile to government.
What YOU are talking about is either anarchism or anarcho-capitalism. There are many flavors under what could in the broadest sense be termed the "libertarian umbrella" if you will. Minarchism is another example and THERE you can perhaps get the purest definition of a libertarian state (that is distinctly separate from anarchy) however, like any political philosophy it's purest form rarely makes for good government. I've responded in several other posts about various examples where I think it is entirely appropriate for government to regulate.
I think the rest of this post qualifies as a straw man because I haven't argued in favor of any of this.
empty vessel
Member
Gaborn said:
I wouldn't disagree that generally a freer society is going to lead to more positive outcomes. What we disagree about is whose freedom. I think a person's freedom to obtain health care outweighs a person's freedom to make a monetary profit from health care. You see, Libertarians aren't pro-freedom. They are pro-certain-freedoms-that-they-value-more-than-other-freedoms. Like the freedom to participate in markets free from racial discrimination, for example, a freedom that Libertarians hate with a passion.
Mind you, this doesn't make Libertarians evil. It makes them just like everybody else. The difference is that some of us don't try to pretend that the freedoms we value less than others aren't freedoms at all.
Mortrialus
Banned
empty vessel said:
Like Ron Paul himself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=26sprb4Vi44
TacticalFox88
Banned
The Cost of college is absolutely asinine. The cost far outweighs the benefits in some casesToxicAdam said:
empty vessel said:
Well sure, we're always going to argue about what is a right for example and what is a government's responsibility and what isn't. There are libertarian socialists who could very possibly see health care as such a right. I don't think most libertarians have a huge problem (necessary evil here I think) with a program like medicare or medicaid (not saying they endorse those programs specifically, but rather the idea of providing medical care for vulnerable populations such as the poor and the very elderly) for example. I think most libertarians would argue these programs should be reformed and made solvent, perhaps even drastically altered. A more liberal person would say, of course that we should have something like "medicare for all," a single payer system where EVERYONE receives their health care from the government. Libertarians would say that assisting vulnerable populations, while maybe not their ideal in terms of government is at least rational, we can intellectually understand why such an outcome is desireable.
On the other hand libertarians DON'T feel the same way about the general concept of health care for all, and PARTICULARLY not in regards to PPACA and the individual mandate.
Mortrialus - You do know what year it is, right? Are you honestly worried that Ron Paul would in any way work to get rid of the CRA of 64? Really?
speculawyer
Member
empty vessel
Member
TacticalFox88 said:
Yes, but that doesn't mean there is a problem with going to college. It means there is a problem with how we charge for it and/or pay for it.
speculawyer
Member
And what are the two big "Christian" issues that always end up in the headlines? Gays and abortion. Two things that Jesus said absolutely NOTHING about.Chumly said:
Jesus did say a lot of hardline things about divorce . . . but no one seems to be pushing those laws.
Gaborn, I am sorry for stating certain sects of libertarian thought were that of the whole and yours as well, I was wrong in doing so. Certainly there are different levels of government that we all accept, and certain levels of regulation we believe are required for creating a safe and healthy society, and I apologize for claiming that all libertarians only hold the most extreme forms.
I still however do not understand why some laws and regulations should be at different levels. What's good for the goose is good for the gander as they say. Why does it matter if a law that is beneficial to everyone is passed in 1 federal government versus 50 state governments? And wouldn't economics of scale come as beneficial to creating regulations? Why leave automobile safety regulations up to 20 different firms to be created 20 different times, where they may see financial gains by cutting corners rather than one government created body that is able to create less biased standards once. The later seems more efficient to me.
I still however do not understand why some laws and regulations should be at different levels. What's good for the goose is good for the gander as they say. Why does it matter if a law that is beneficial to everyone is passed in 1 federal government versus 50 state governments? And wouldn't economics of scale come as beneficial to creating regulations? Why leave automobile safety regulations up to 20 different firms to be created 20 different times, where they may see financial gains by cutting corners rather than one government created body that is able to create less biased standards once. The later seems more efficient to me.
Mortrialus
Banned
speculawyer said:
Jesus condoned mosaic law.
Nice take down of a stupid WSJ article by Kthug:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/20...world-unite/?smid=tw-NytimesKrugman&seid=auto
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/20...world-unite/?smid=tw-NytimesKrugman&seid=auto
ivedoneyourmom said:
Do you mind my asking if you're an American? In the US we have always had certain laws that applied to the states and certain laws that apply to the federal government. For example the age of consent. Federally, we have the AoC at 18, but that's mainly for things like participating in pornography (and technically viewing it of course) and other related laws that are broadly of federal concern because they apply across state lines. Within that though many states have a variety of AoCs on average around 16.
You can scroll to the bottom of this chart and see the various states ages of consent here.
The USA was set up with this hierarchy by the deliberate choice of our founding fathers in our Constitution. Some powers are explicitly reserved to the federal government, some explicitly to the states, some to the people.
Synth_floyd
Banned
SolKane said:
If you consider wasting 4 years of time and $(however much your tuition was) to be "breaking even," then....yeah I guess you did.
Gaborn said:
Yes, I am American (and no, I don't mind you asking). I understand we have an hierarchy, and it makes sense why the founding fathers did it that way, it (to me at least) appears to be done as a compromise, to permit states to keep their autonomy and convince them to join the union at the time.
I am aware that different states have different AoCs, what I don't understand is what benefit does permitting say that state of Alabama to set the age of consent to 16, rather than 18? It seems less messy, and would be easier to just set it the same across all the states. Unless you want to claim that setting the age at 18 interferes with the great Iowan cultural tradition* of permitting adults to be able to hook up with 14 year old boys/16 year old girls.
*The US should have no qualms about destroying cultural traditions, we've done it many hundreds of times over, the entirety of the US is built on the destruction and shedding of such things.
Holy shit, the WSJ article that K-Thug smacked down is idiotic drivel.
No shit. Unemployment insurance prevents the complete freefall in consumer spending and rapid rise of poverty and all its related maladies that would occur if these people had no money to spend.
That's not what the White House is saying at all.
What kind of out-of-touch, scatterbrained douche-nozzle do you have to be to compare tens of millions of victims of a worldwide economic catastrophe to a lazy teenager?
Jesus Christ, the multiplier effect is an Econ 1 concept.
ATMs and airport kiosks are a horrible example. Departments of 20 salaried employees working 60 hour weeks when in 2007 those departments held 30 people working 40 hour weeks is what Obama was really going for there.
For $100, tell me what else happened in the 1930s, Stephen.
I don't believe this man read a single word Keynes ever wrote.
No shit. Unemployment insurance prevents the complete freefall in consumer spending and rapid rise of poverty and all its related maladies that would occur if these people had no money to spend.
That's not what the White House is saying at all.
What kind of out-of-touch, scatterbrained douche-nozzle do you have to be to compare tens of millions of victims of a worldwide economic catastrophe to a lazy teenager?
Jesus Christ, the multiplier effect is an Econ 1 concept.
ATMs and airport kiosks are a horrible example. Departments of 20 salaried employees working 60 hour weeks when in 2007 those departments held 30 people working 40 hour weeks is what Obama was really going for there.
For $100, tell me what else happened in the 1930s, Stephen.
I don't believe this man read a single word Keynes ever wrote.
Synth_floyd said:
I'm not sure I understand your response; are you familiar with deadpan humor? Anyway, I didn't waste any money, although I probably did waste time. Then again, what else was I supposed to do? College is basically an aging vat for many people, and I was no exception.
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
Mortrialus
Banned
Puddles said:
Krugman was perfectly justified in calling the article anti intellectual drivel. Some of the comments on the WSJ article are pretty scathing as well.
ivedoneyourmom said:
Having 50 different ways to regulate a situation can potentially produce 50 different results with varying success. It's the "laboratories of democracy" theory again. A one size fits all policy doesn't always work for every state, and the flexibility of giving states the ability to set their own rules will tend to produce different outcomes. Just as a simple example, if we DIDN'T have the state/federal distinction then state taxes would be uniform across the country. Since they're not different states will try different formulations of taxation to attract businesses to invest in their state. Some are of course going to be more effective than others and the tax schemes that tend to get the maximum revenue with the minimum opposition (and I'm not necessarily talking about percentages but rather how things are structured) will be more likely to be adopted - because they're more efficacious. It allows essentially states to compete with each other to find better outcomes that states can either choose to adopt or, I suppose, choose to suffer for not doing so.
Gaborn said:
I suppose you are also against a minimum wage, since this interferes with the state's ability to undercut other states for attracting employment opportunities?
I see no benefit to the US as a whole for permitting states to 'steal' other states businesses. Could you tell me why this is favorable?
jamesinclair
Banned
ToxicAdam said:
Whats needed is more competition.
From the government.
The free market has gone and done what they do best: fuck things up for the consumer.
Heres what needs to happen:
Government needs to pour billions into government universities. Poach all the best teachers from the private sector. Build the best classrooms. Get the best reputation.
This will take at least 15 years, because of how much value people put into rankings, and how slow they move.
But imagine it's 2025. The US News college rankings come out.
1) UMass Boston
2) SUNY Albany
3) UMass Amherst
4) UC Berkeley
5) U Texas
6) Harvard
7) UCLA
8) U Florida
9) Yale
10) U Michigan
So what does this mean? All the big name PRIVATE schools can no longer rely on their name alone and cannot demand an enormous premium. No longer is having "Princeton" on your resume worth $200,000 because having "SUNY" is more valuable but costs only $40,000
And with students being able to chose between $5,000 a semester at the US number 1 school in the country (UMass)..... vs $40,000 at #6 Harvard down the road...?
Harvard (and everyone else) cant compete. So they have to lower their tuition.
So now, Harvard, NYU, Emory etc all need to match the price of their public counterpart because the education level is the same AND by that point, the brand and reputation is the same.
Result: $5,000 tuition for all.
TacticalFox88
Banned
Just how far do you believe the states should have in their "rights"Gaborn said:
Looks like the Obama administration might have found their election-year patsy ...
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-blankfein-goldman-20110823,0,2783618.story
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-blankfein-goldman-20110823,0,2783618.story
timetokill
Banned
ToxicAdam said:
The government has taken incredible steps to basically fuck students over and make them wage slaves for the rest of their lives.
They absolutely need to bring back the ability to declare bankruptcy and wipe your student loan debt, or we are headed toward some serious misery in about 10 years.
- Status