Support NeoGAF

[Metaphoreus]

A. They're withholding labor and money.

B. They likely did think it will have some effect or they wouldn't have withheld the money or publicized it.

C. Even if the donors were wrong in their judgment and drowned in a sea of donations, corruption is not a factor in the question of whether most donations are made to induce policy change. It's a yes or no question. In the case of these 200,000 the answer is yes. They withhold money until Obama changes policy. When he changes policy he is rewarded with campaign labor and 17 million dollars. This is the biggest campaign there is and donors are still willing to make monetary threats over policy.

A. Contrary to your misunderstanding, I don't dispute this, as I have no reason to.

B. Again, I have no reason to dispute this.

C. The answer to your question, in the context of these 200,000, is "no." They didn't make a donation to induce a policy change--they withheld donations and publicized that fact to induce a policy change (or to garner the support of others). That's why this case doesn't support you in controverting me. The question that APKmetsfan, Dax01, and I are discussing concerns donors, not non-donors.

That's how lobbyists work when it comes to working with politicians. While it would be useless to funnel money to a politician that doesn't support your views, it doesn't mean all the donor needs is for the politician to win the election. I mean, c'mon, there's a reason why many of the times the opinion of the economic elite get there way so many times!

Why does this logic escape you?

Which logic? I doubt that a substantial portion of donors act at the behest of lobbyists.

It's by design. Nearly every post he makes includes portions that are tailored to distract from the main argument he's responding to. So it runs in circles. Every time one position comes under scrutiny it shifts to the other.

You--the guy who entered this discussion by claiming that "[c]orruption wasn't in the exchange," then claiming that you never said such a thing when it became obvious you just hadn't read the exchange, and now are claiming that your complaint this entire time has been about a lack of evidence--are accusing me--the guy who was engaged in this discussion from the outset and has presented a consistent argument throughout--of rhetorical dishonesty? Really, though?

Argue about corruption with him for ten pages and see where it gets when he doesn't even believe that people donate money to change policy.

You're mischaracterizing my argument. If the proposition is that some people donate money to a politician so the politician will change his policy, then I agree that that's true. If the proposition is that all people who donate money do so for that reason, then I disagree. Again, I highly doubt that any significant portion of the 3.6ish million who donated less than $200 to Obama's 2012 campaign believed they could affect his policies by the fact of their donation.

Government is society. It is the tool by which society organizes and protects its collective interests. Society certainly has an interest in protecting speech rights of individuals. It has a greater interest in protecting its democratic form of government.

Government is not society, and its interests are not always the interests of the society subject to its laws. That distinction is clear in the context of speech. The freedom of speech within society is critical to hold government accountable to society, which is good for society, but will often be bad for the incumbents who comprise government.

Yes, I would prefer to have democracy regulated by people that society elects rather than an unelected politburo.

Again, we're talking about regulating speech, not democracy. And I'm not talking about an unelected politburo when I refer to "those who wish to themselves engage in speaking." Instead, I'm talking about those who wish to themselves engage in speaking. Your framing of this issue--as involving a "narrow economic elite"--may have been plausible fifty years ago, but it's a laughably inaccurate description of the modern world. Today, many have the opportunity to shape the public debate through traditional media, discussion forums such as this one, social media, blogs, videos, tweets, and so on. The question is, should those who wish to say something be entitled to say it, or will those who wish to silence them have the power to shut them up?

 

[empty vessel]

Did you see my post about a rights theory thread? Any suggestions?

No suggestions per se. What I would do is just assert a theory of rights that you believe and let the discussion begin from there.

But this is the important distinction! As a shareholder of other corporations not only am I entering into the deal completely under my own free will but I can accrue the necessary shares to be able to start affecting policy or I can theoretically withdraw completely at any point if disappointed in the elected and appointed governance. With the government I am claimed as under its rule against my will and "granted" one share of which I can do absolutely nothing with to affect policy unless I accrue enough shares to become a Senator or the President. And I'm not allowed to withdraw with my property, especially from the United States in particular.

The problem is that you are part of a society from which you have gained immense benefits. You do not ever want to "withdraw completely" from society. You would be a foolish mad man to want to live alone on a deserted island with absolutely nothing. Look around you where you currently are. All of the things that you see are benefits of society. If you want a bed to sleep on, you are choosing society. So it's not a question of entitlement to withdraw. Nobody wants to withdraw from society, not even you. The question, then, is not how to permit people to withdraw from society, since we generally pay no attention to irrational people, but how best to organize society. And most people agree that allowing each member of a given society an equal say in social organization (democracy) is the most fair means, even if it is not perfect.

The government corporation has borderline zero accountability.

This is just a really bizarre thing to say, given that a democratic government has to stand for periodic public election.

It determines on what grounds you can sue it, it prevents you from bringing criminal charges against it, it can imprison you at will, it establishes the standards by which you can petition it or speak against it, it claims authority to murder you at will, fuck it can even charge your property with crimes or merely just seize it, and the only ones who ever wind up paying are taxpayers.

In a democracy, it does all of that with majority support and thus legitimately so. That's the theory. We can have a discussion about exactly how democratic this or that government is in practice, but it is always on the individual members of society to vigilantly protect popular sovereignty and democratic governance. And I'm considering our conversation primarily a theoretical one.

Losing an election doesn't hold the government any more accountable than a CEO getting fired (or even charged!) holds the rest of the corporation accountable.

In theory, a CEO is only (roughly) accountable to some members of a given society, not all of them. And a teeny minority at that.

Monopoly power creates and maintain elites. Of course elites from without want control of monopoly power.

Power can be obtained in any number of ways. Monopoly power preserves power, it doesn't create it as far as I can tell. I'm still not sure what you're getting at, though. Are you referring to the monopoly on violence that the State possesses? I think that is a sound policy. I certainly don't want random individuals or groups of individuals to have the power to inflict violence on me. One of the most basic planks of the social compact is that we give up our power to commit violence against each other to the collective, except in extreme circumstances, like when necessary to preserve our own life or third persons. It's fundamental to preserving order.

 

[East Lake]

You're mischaracterizing my argument. If the proposition is that some people donate money to a politician so the politician will change his policy, then I agree that that's true. If the proposition is that all people who donate money do so for that reason, then I disagree. Again, I highly doubt that any significant portion of the 3.6ish million who donated less than $200 to Obama's 2012 campaign believed they could affect his policies by the fact of their donation.

No the argument put forward by you was that most people donate because of ideology. If that's not what you meant I suggest typing what you mean next time. Like writing "not all donations are inducing policy" rather than "most donations are because of ideology." That way next time you won't have to make up new claims as you go along to fill in the holes in logic.

And yes you are dishonest. I've been clear the entire time that this is about "donations for ideology" Whereas you're constantly trying to shift the argument. Donors and non-donors are another meaningless pedantic distinction in your incoherent rambling.

 

[Giant Panda]

See, this is what I don't get. Even if the administration lied about the video being responsible, and not a planned attack by Al Qaeda....so fucking what? Would trying to blame the video somehow cause Stevens and his crew to be alive today? I truly don't get this shit.

And how is government supposed to be accountable to the people if it can lie intentionally without very good reasons for doing so? I don't understand why you would think it would hypothetically be okay for the government to lie in this case.

 

[Metaphoreus]

No the argument put forward by you was that most people donate because of ideology. If that's not what you meant I suggest typing what you mean next time. Like writing "not all donations are inducing policy" rather than "most donations are because of ideology." That way next time you won't have to make up new claims as you go along to fill in the holes in logic.

And yes you are dishonest. I've been clear the entire time that this is about "donations for ideology" Whereas you're constantly trying to shift the argument. Donors and non-donors are another meaningless pedantic distinction in your incoherent rambling.

Look, bud, I promise I didn't run over your cat or piss in your cereal this morning. That must have been someone else.

I'm still not even sure on which point you disagree with me. This whole time you've been engaged in this passive-aggressive meta-discussion with yourself about what you think I've said. I'd prefer you come right out and tell me where you think I'm wrong, or at the very least, ask me to clarify my position if you don't understand it.

 

[benjipwns]

The problem is that you are part of a society from which you have gained immense benefits. You do not ever want to "withdraw completely" from society. You would be a foolish mad man to want to live alone on a deserted island with absolutely nothing. Look around you where you currently are. All of the things that you see are benefits of society. If you want a bed to sleep on, you are choosing society. So it's not a question of entitlement to withdraw. Nobody wants to withdraw from society, not even you. The question, then, is not how to permit people to withdraw from society, since we generally pay no attention to irrational people, but how best to organize society.
...
In a democracy, it does all of that with majority support and thus legitimately so

But this continues to confuse government for society which cannot be since there are at minimum 180 different governments, therefore societies, in existence currently, yet you contend you cannot withdraw from society. And the principle government of which we are speaking, the United States government, does not permit one to leave its "society" property intact to join another "society" such as say, Australia. If this is not "withdrawing" from society then it establishes that one can with withdraw from one government corporation to another and still reside within "society" or that it's possible to withdraw from a "society" and still remain within a "society."

It also seems to make the claim that because "society" has determined it has given you benefits, you are therefore indebted permanently to "society" on further terms determined by "society" which destructs the theory of self-ownership. Instead arguing that you are owned by others under their terms.

Indeed the distinction of a supposed "majority" puts lie to the claim of a single society/public interest/common good/etc. Why do the wishes of 51 people define "society" but 50 must automatically consent to the 51's demands?

This is just a really bizarre thing to say, given that a democratic government has to stand for periodic public election.
...
In theory, a CEO is only (roughly) accountable to some members of a given society, not all of them. And a teeny minority at that.

This is the same as any part of the government corporation. I can't vote out Harry Reid or Mitch McConnell no matter what I do. Let alone dismiss members of the bureaucracy, let alone sue the state for damages or bring charges against it. Even the other party won't bring charges against the Bush Administration and they have power! What chance do I or any other citizens have to hold the government accountable?

Power can be obtained in any number of ways. Monopoly power preserves power, it doesn't create it as far as I can tell. I'm still not sure what you're getting at, though. Are you referring to the monopoly on violence that the State possesses?

Any monopoly by a corporation. I suggest that monopolies can create power by leveraging their monopoly in one area into others. Hypothetically, say a corporation uses an oil monopoly's power to monopolize telecommunications.

I certainly don't want random individuals or groups of individuals to have the power to inflict violence on me.

But they have that power. The only difference is that one random group of individuals you accept it because it's "legitimate" because the magic of democracy! As if the government as an intangible corporate entity deciding that empty vessel and benji need to be put to death is somehow superior to the local gang doing so.

 

[empty vessel]

But this continues to confuse government for society which cannot be since there are at minimum 180 different governments, therefore societies, in existence currently, yet you contend you cannot withdraw from society. And the principle government of which we are speaking, the United States government, does not permit one to leave its "society" property intact to join another "society" such as say, Australia.

First, Australia itself is a society, so you would not be withdrawing from society, but rather moving from one society to another. That's a semantic quibble; if you meant the latter to begin with, that's fine. Second, the US does permit this. Of course, if human society ever becomes global (which I suspect it will if it does not obliterate itself first), then moving from one society to another will no longer be an option (absent alien contact and intergalactic travel). But I'm fine with that (assuming the global society is organized democratically), because, at the end of the day we are all in this together.

It also seems to make the claim that because "society" has determined it has given you benefits, you are therefore indebted permanently to "society" on further terms determined by "society" which destructs the theory of self-ownership. Instead arguing that you are owned by others.

Well, as I said, one would have to be a foolish mad man--and probably seriously mentally ill--to reject society. Its benefits are immense. Everything you possess is because of society. If you were born alone on a deserted island, by the time you died, you might have managed to save a few coconuts. Compare those coconuts to what you have now. And not just the possessions, but also the services you enjoy. All this to say, in a way, yes, you are indebted permanently to society, because rejecting society is mad.

Indeed the distinction of a supposed "majority" puts lie to the claim of a single society/public interest/common good/etc. Why do the wishes of 51 people define "society" but 49 must automatically consent to the 51's demands?

Because it's the most fair way. I didn't say it was perfect. But if you're going to have a society, there has to be rules. And then the question arises how the rules are made. You have a better idea? My ears are open, because I do not think that democracy is perfect. But I've never heard a better method. Plato suggested benevolent philosopher kings, but Plato was a hack.

This is the same as any part of the government corporation. I can't vote out Harry Reid or Mitch McConnell no matter what I do. Let alone dismiss members of the bureaucracy, let alone sue the state for damages or bring charges against it. Even the other party won't bring charges against the Bush Administration and they have power! What chance do I or any other citizens have to hold the government accountable?

These are practical critiques against American-style "democracy," not theoretical democracy. I am personally not sure that the US government should be called democratic. Certainly, it has democratic aspects, but they are pretty minimal, and corrupted. And, hey, isn't that how this whole conversation started? If you feel like the US government is not accountable, then why oppose proposals to make it more accountable to all members of society?

But they have that power. The only difference is that one random group of individuals you accept it because it's "legitimate" because the magic of democracy! As if the government as an intangible corporate entity deciding that empty vessel and benji need to be put to death is somehow superior to the local gang doing so.

Ha. But in truth democracy is magic. It's the primary rule that the rules are made by the majority. And by that magic the rules gain legitimacy, even if they are the stupidest fucking rules a person ever saw. But I think you are changing the sense in which the word 'power' is being used. Obviously, any lunkhead always has the physical power to use violence and bash my head in. But it isn't an authorized violence. And if he is caught, there will be consequences for his illegitimate exercise of violence against me.

 

[benjipwns]

But in truth democracy is magic. It's the primary rule that the rules are made by the majority. And by that magic the rules gain legitimacy, even if they are the stupidest fucking rules a person ever saw. But I think you are changing the sense in which the word 'power' is being used. Obviously, any lunkhead always has the physical power to use violence and bash my head in. But it isn't an authorized violence. And if he is caught, there will be consequences for his illegitimate exercise of violence against me.

So as long as the lunkhead is told to bash your head in by the "democracy" it's cool because he got the papers stamped by some other lunkheads.

Second, the US does permit this.

Not property intact, and you have to get its permission before it stops making claims on it. Something shockingly no other country does.

All this to say, in a way, yes, you are indebted permanently to society

I always find it remarkable how slavery to pay off debts accrued against your will and before your existence is justified.

If you feel like the US government is not accountable, then why oppose proposals to make it more accountable to all members of society?

I don't, that's why I support at bare minimum the maintenance of the First Amendment in whole. Especially against attempts at corporate monopolization.

And then the question arises how the rules are made. You have a better idea?

Why, voluntarily of course!

 

[SquiddyCracker]

The problem with american style democracy is that the US have the highest percentage of uneducated fools (among western countries), a rich cat oligarchy that through mass media fosters a hate-culture that turns the lower socioeconomic strata upon itself, and a conviction of the brilliance of ultimately adhering to a piece of paper written by cave men.

End result:

A government comprised of the rich and powerful, detached from the average american's concern - instead better at empathizing with the rich and the corporations.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

You're mischaracterizing my argument. If the proposition is that some people donate money to a politician so the politician will change his policy, then I agree that that's true. If the proposition is that all people who donate money do so for that reason, then I disagree. Again, I highly doubt that any significant portion of the 3.6ish million who donated less than $200 to Obama's 2012 campaign believed they could affect his policies by the fact of their donation.

WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT THEM. Don't point to them as a reason why it should be legal for rich people to buy candidates. We're talking about limits on donations not their complete elimination. Or at least I am.

When you get up to 125 million dollars, you're buying candidates and political parties. You constant refusal to see the reality that politicians change their views to attract donations is quite frankly making this entire discussion useless. Your an apologist for oligarchy and the subversion of democracy.

The court even disagrees with your statement politicians aren't receptive to their donations and change behavior. The stated this in one of the moth breath takingly ignorant statements ever written by a justice

We have said that government regulation may not target the general gratitude a candidate may feel toward those who support him or his allies, or the political access such support may afford. “Ingratiation and access . . . are not corruption.”

In other words, corruption is not corruption. Their definition isn't anywhere near the founders they claim to base their philosophy on. http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/155950253-McCutcheon-v-FEC-Amicus-Brief.pdf

Government is not society, and its interests are not always the interests of the society subject to its laws. That distinction is clear in the context of speech. The freedom of speech within society is critical to hold government accountable to society, which is good for society, but will often be bad for the incumbents who comprise government.

government is society its the rules by which society governs itself.

 

[benjipwns]

The problem with american style democracy is that the US have the highest percentage of uneducated fools (among western countries), a rich cat oligarchy that through mass media fosters a hate-culture that turns the lower socioeconomic strata upon itself, and a conviction of the brilliance of ultimately adhering to a piece of paper written by cave men.

End result:

A government comprised of the rich and powerful, detached from the average american's concern - instead better at empathizing with the rich and the corporations.

But do you have any common sense solutions, preferably ones that fit on a 3x5 card?

government is society its the rules by which society governs itself.

Then what does the War on Drugs say about society?

 

[empty vessel]

So as long as the lunkhead is told to bash your head in by the "democracy" it's cool because he got the papers stamped by some other lunkheads.

That's the basis of prisons (which are violence). Do you reject prisons? Mind you, it's fine if you do. I might, even, though obviously for different reasons than you might.

Why, voluntarily of course!

What does this mean? Explicate on it. My position is that democracy is the closest thing you can get to it. "Voluntary" rules to me sound like the absence of rules.

 

[Piecake]

Why, voluntarily of course!

I think he meant realistic ideas, not naively idealistic ones.

 

[Coriolanus]

Is there a consensus?
The tax rate might be alright, but the effective tax rate seems pretty poor.

IIrc both parties agree that it should be lowered (what a surprise), alas, democrats wanted to also close loopholes when lowering it.

That did not go well with republicans.

Ah, here we go.

Then what does the War on Drugs say about society?

That fear is a very bloody powerful force?
Nothing new, really.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Then what does the War on Drugs say about society?

How the hell does this challenge the factual notion I presented?

It shows that society sucks sometimes, is that really in question?

 

[SquiddyCracker]

But do you have any common sense solutions, preferably ones that fit on a 3x5 card?

Direct democracy through specialized hardware (would just be a tablet-like device, dirt cheap, that would only display the issue of the day and a box for inputting your vote, that connects via a high security encryption to the internet), government functioning more or less like now but with citizens being capable to initiate votes on any issue they deem important enough. The threshold for initiating a vote could be put at a low enough percentage so that more engaged individuals can highlight things of of importance. No presidential or parliamentary powers that are not granted (or cannot be removed) via a direct democratic vote.

Boom!
Fixed your country, murricans.

 

[benjipwns]

What does this mean? Explicate on it. My position is that democracy is the closest thing you can get to it. "Voluntary" rules to me sound like the absence of rules.

Democracy is involuntary for everyone who doesn't "win" same as any other form of government. All voluntary means is that no one is granted an elite status of ownership over others.

I think he meant realistic ideas, not naively idealistic ones.

So it's naively idealistic to suggest the goal should be to not use violence against one another because they don't like what the other is doing or how they look or who they worship or what they wear or what side they're white on?

Then consider me such!

How the hell does this challenge the factual notion I presented?

So society "governs" itself by violently punishing itself for not harming itself? Sounds like "society" shouldn't be in charge of setting rules.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

So society "governs" itself by violently punishing itself for not harming itself? Sounds like "society" shouldn't be in charge of setting rules.

so you're a libertarian and hold on to an imaginary viewpoint of the world. OK.

Societies can set rules, the fact you think they suck doesn't mean its not society. It means every society doesn't grant all people, all rights.

Youre not arguing with my description of the world, your intent on arguing how your perfect society would work (which still would be the 'government'), which is a libertarian voluntarist society which is nothing more than a thought experiment.

 

[benjipwns]

It means every society doesn't grant all people, all rights.

So self-ownership is a no, then?

Youre not arguing with my description of the world,

You don't think it a contradiction and weird that society makes "rules" against itself that it doesn't follow EN MASSE, and then punishes itself for violating these rules?

 

[Metaphoreus]

WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT THEM. Don't point to them as a reason why it should be legal for rich people to buy candidates. We're talking about limits on donations not their complete elimination. Or at least I am.

Then why are we arguing? I agree with you that contributions should be subject to limitation.

government is society its the rules by which society governs itself.

There are many different sorts of rules by which society governs itself, some formal, such as laws, and many informal, such as social norms and mores. Government isn't the rules by which society governs itself, and it isn't society. It's an institution within society which, in important respects, stands apart from society.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

So self-ownership is a no, then?

what are you rambling about? I'm not making any prescriptions. I'm describing the world as is. Government is how society organize themselves, that's the definition.

by definition government is society, the coming together of people and setting rules on how interactions work, what limits there are and how we select these rules.

Every form of society is a government, a tribe is a government, a nation state is a government, a city is a government, an anarchist commune is a government. we in a democracy have chosen to organize ourselves by majority rule with certain limitations laid out in our constitution.

 

[benjipwns]

so you're a libertarian and hold on to an imaginary viewpoint of the world. OK.

I'm not a libertarian per se, I just support democracy and human rights over worship of and fealty to corporations that declare themselves legitimate owners of people.

Government is how society organize themselves, that's the definition.

Since when?

by definition government is society, the coming together of people and setting rules on how interactions work, what limits there are and how we select these rules.

So NeoGAF is a government. Gerry's Mod is a government.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Then why are we arguing? I agree with you that contributions should be subject to limitation.

IE are contributions, in the real world. So no you don't agree. You think corporations should be able to give unlimited sums and spend unlimited sums to support candidates.

There are many different sorts of rules by which society governs itself, some formal, such as laws, and many informal, such as social norms and mores. Government isn't the rules by which society governs itself, and it isn't society. It's an institution within society which, in important respects, stands apart from society.

No, your creating a distinction that doesn't exist. That distinction is a part of the rules of society.

 

[SquiddyCracker]

I'm not a libertarian per se, I just support democracy and human rights over worship of and fealty to corporations that declare themselves legitimate owners of people.


Since when?

A government is the system by which a state or community is governed.[1] In Commonwealth English, a government more narrowly refers to the particular executive in control of a state at a given time[2]—known in American English as an administration. In American English, government refers to the larger system by which any state is organised.[3] Furthermore, government is occasionally used in English as a synonym for governance.

In the case of its broad associative definition, government normally consists of legislators, administrators, and arbitrators. Government is the means by which state policy is enforced, as well as the mechanism for determining the policy of the state. A form of government, or form of state governance, refers to the set of political systems and institutions that make up the organisation of a specific government.

Government of any kind currently affects every human activity in many important ways. For this reason, political scientists generally argue that government should not be studied by itself; but should be studied along with anthropology, economics, history, philosophy, science, and sociology.

 

[empty vessel]

Democracy is involuntary for everyone who doesn't "win" same as any other form of government. All voluntary means is that no one is granted an elite status of ownership over others.

It's true that democracy is involuntary for those who don't win with respect to the issues they don't win on, but it's the price of enjoying the immense benefit of being part of a society. So ultimately this is a rejection of society. You want absolute freedom, but you cannot have absolute freedom and society, because what you do might affect somebody else. To be a part of society, you have to cede your liberty to kill another human being out of spite, for example. You have to choose. Coconuts or your cell phone. One or the other.

 

[Piecake]

I'm not a libertarian per se, I just support democracy and human rights over worship of and fealty to corporations that declare themselves legitimate owners of people.


Since when?

If you define governments as a tyrannical corporation, how can you possibly have a democracy larger than a small town?

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Since when?

Since I learned the english language

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/government

The system by which a state or community is governed

It's true that democracy is involuntary for those who don't win with respect to the issues they don't win on, but it's the price of enjoying the immense benefit of being part of a society. So ultimately this is a rejection of society. You want absolute freedom, but you cannot have absolute freedom and society, because what you do might affect somebody else. To be a part of society, you have to cede your liberty to kill another human being out of spite, for example. You have to choose.

Its not like there is a whole wealth of literature where most of his arguments were discussed and rejected 500 years ago

 

[benjipwns]

In American English, government refers to the larger system by which any state is organised.[3]

Since I learned the english language

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/government

A state. And what's a state?

To be a part of society, you have to cede your liberty to kill another human being out of spite, for example. You have to choose.

Assume I have this liberty. What's requiring me to cede it?

 

[SquiddyCracker]

A state. And what's a state?

An geographical area which a collection of people within recognizes as sovereign, and which is recognized as a state by other states.

 

[benjipwns]

Its not like there is a whole wealth of literature where most of his arguments were discussed and rejected 500 years ago

Yes, yes, Hobbes and Rousseau said without employing endless violence against our fellow man (especially those uncivilized lower classes) then there'd be violent chaos so we can't stop now.

Like I said, I disagree. I think we've evolved to think beyond such brutish notions.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

A state. And what's a state?

Read my denfinition

Assume I have this liberty. What's requiring me to cede it?

Enjoy

http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/hobbes/leviathan-contents.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Social_Contract
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Origin_of_the_Family,_Private_Property_and_the_State
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Treatises_of_Government
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Society
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_(Aristotle)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Kant
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stuart_Mill
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agrarian_Justice

 

[benjipwns]

Read my denfinition

Your definition is circular. Everything is a state and a government under your definition.

A state is a corporation that claims a legitimate monopoly on the use of force. This is not the same thing as society.

Enjoy

Yes, yes, and what happens when I kill someone out of spite because I refuse to cede that "liberty"?

 

[Metaphoreus]

IE are contributions, in the real world. So no you don't agree. You think corporations should be able to give unlimited sums and spend unlimited sums to support candidates.

You're right, I don't agree that independent expenditures should be limited. I don't think the government should be empowered to prevent corporations or any other person (natural or juridical) from speaking or spending money on speech.

Also, I suggest we adopt my terminology, which distinguishes between campaign contributions and independent expenditures based upon the recipient and purpose of the funds expended, in the interest of clarity. Otherwise we'll just confuse each other and others by using the same terms to mean different things.

No, your creating a distinction that doesn't exist. That distinction is a part of the rules of society.

Are you using the term "government" not to refer to the institution, but to any and all rules of behavior in a society? For instance, in your usage, is the rule that a man should remove his hat upon entering a building a part of "government"?

 

[empty vessel]

Assume I have this liberty. What's requiring me to cede it?

Your desire to live among other human beings and benefit from that living arrangement. (That's what a society is.) If you insist on the prerogative to kill human beings out of spite, other humans will not let you live with them.

 

[SquiddyCracker]

People are always free to leave the state they live in, to head for the part of our planet that hasn't yet been claimed by a nation.

So, I guess, somewhere in the pacific ocean.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

You're right, I don't agree that independent expenditures should be limited. I don't think the government should be empowered to prevent corporations or any other person (natural or juridical) from speaking or spending money on speech. I suggest we adopt my terminology, which distinguishes between direct campaign contributions and independent expenditures based upon the recipient and purpose of the funds expended, in the interest of clarity. Otherwise we'll just confuse each other and others by using the same terms to mean different things.

I believe we should join the real world where your distinctions are relatively meaningless and only serve to have pedantic distinctions so the wider point is never discussed.

Are you using the term "government" not to refer to the institution, but to any and all rules of behavior in a society? For instance, in your usage, is the rule that a man should remove his hat upon entering a building a part of "government"?

The institution of rules.

 

[benjipwns]

People are always free to leave the state they live in, to head for the part of our planet that hasn't yet been claimed by a nation.

So, I guess, somewhere in the pacific ocean.

They aren't free to leave property intact. Therefore they aren't free to leave.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

People are always free to leave the state they live in, to head for the part of our planet that hasn't yet been claimed by a nation.

So, I guess, somewhere in the pacific ocean.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walden

They aren't free to leave property intact. Therefore they aren't free to leave.

That's quite an assumption.

 

[benjipwns]

That's quite a jump.

If I take you hostage inside your house and say you can leave but you have to leave everything behind and you can't get it back nor return, would you consider yourself free to leave?

 

[NYCmetsfan]

If I take you hostage inside your house and say you can leave but you have to leave everything behind and you can't get it back nor return, would you consider yourself free to leave?

uh... yes

your assuming a theory of property and property rights which while some might agree with you in the end isn't something that's to be assumed. I really think you need to read some political philosophy. especially a lot of the 19th century stuff which really dove into questions of property.

edit: your example undermines your own argument. what's to prevent you from doing that to me? what's to prevent you from taking my property? I'm gonna assume its the police which is civil government. so you've just ceded the point government (aka society) creates private property.

 

[SquiddyCracker]

If I take you hostage inside your house and say you can leave but you have to leave everything behind and you can't get it back nor return, would you consider yourself free to leave?

But you weren't taken into a country, you were born into one.
Ergo, you consented to the rules of the land which you put your first wobbly feet on - as far as the state and you are concerned, you're a consenting participant of the social contract. If that contract states you have to leave your shit behind, then tough luck - maybe you shouldn't have signed it

Ultimately, all you ever truly own is your own body, the rest is just what your environment has temporarily allowed you to call your own.
Which is incidentally the reason euthanasia should be legal.

 

[empty vessel]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walden

That's quite an assumption.

Contrary to the wikipedia entry, Thoureau did not live "without support of any kind." He took implements of society with him, implements he could not have absent society Not to mention that he used society itself (other people) to build and live. Although I guess in a normal conversation with non-libertarian people who did not deny the benefits of society writ large, what Thoreau did would constitute living without support.

 

[benjipwns]

But you weren't taken into a country, you were born into one.
Ergo, you consented to the rules of the land which you put your first wobbly feet on - as far as the state and you are concerned, you're a consenting participant of the social contract. If that contract states you have to leave your shit behind, then tough luck - maybe you shouldn't have signed it.

Right, somehow a contract that one party can change at will, impose on other parties against their will and was never presented to one party for consideration is somehow valid because we owe it to a corporation to obey them.

Can't wait until the rest of the corporations get that power!

your assuming a theory of property and property rights which while some might agree with you in the end isn't something that's to be assumed. I really think you need to read some political philosophy. especially a lot of the 19th century stuff which really dove into questions of property.

It's nice of you to assume that someone who disagrees with being owned by others hasn't read any political philosophy, I mean why else would they reject being owned?!?

your example undermines your own argument. what's to prevent you from doing that to me? what's to prevent you from taking my property? I'm gonna assume its the police which is civil government. so you've just ceded the point government (aka society) creates private property.

My good will, my evaluation of negative costs, etc. I don't need a corporation to tell me no to not do it. And no corporation could stop me if I was considering otherwise, only punish me afterwards. So why do they need a monopoly?

 

[Metaphoreus]

I believe we should join the real world where your distinctions are relatively meaningless and only serve to have pedantic distinctions so the wider point is never discussed.

You lose nothing in adopting my terminology, save confusion. If you wish to argue that independent expenditures are equivalent in effect to campaign contributions, you can do so. For instance, you could say, "Independent expenditures are equivalent in effect to campaign contributions." But if you insist on ignoring the obvious real-world distinctions between those types of expenses, then we'll just have to waste more time misunderstanding each other.

The institution of rules.

Now I'm even more confused. Do you mean an institution that is composed of all social rules (formal and informal, as I used those terms), such that your answer to the question in my last post is "yes"? Or do you mean the process by which such rules are instituted, such that your answer to that question is "no"?

 

[SquiddyCracker]

Right, somehow a contract that one party can change at will, impose on other parties against their will and was never presented to one party for consideration is somehow valid because we owe it to a corporation to obey them.

Can't wait until the rest of the corporations get that power!

The thing is, you are also that other party. You are simultaneously two entities engaged in a contract, you just happen to have a much smaller say in one of the entities (who happen to have a greater say as a result of being compromised of an additional 367 million peeps.)

That sort of situation wouldn't quite be present with a corporate entity and a non-affiliated citizen.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

You lose nothing in adopting my terminology, save confusion. If you wish to argue that independent expenditures are equivalent in effect to campaign contributions, you can do so. For instance, you could say, "Independent expenditures are equivalent in effect to campaign contributions." But if you insist on ignoring the obvious real-world distinctions between those types of expenses, then we'll just have to waste more time misunderstanding each other.

the real world distinction on who the check is address to.

I don't think there's much more to discuss tbh you don't think donations or IE are corruption.

Now I'm even more confused. Do you mean an institution that is composed of all social rules (formal and informal, as I used those terms), such that your answer to the question in my last post is "yes"? Or do you mean the process by which such rules are instituted, such that your answer to that question is "no"?

I've provided a definition

 

[benjipwns]

The thing is, you are also that other party. You are simultaneously two entities engaged in a contract, you just happen to have a much smaller say in one of the entities (who happen to have a greater say as a result of being compromised of an addition 367 million peeps.)

I am very much not a member of the other party. Neither are most of the other peeps.

 

[SquiddyCracker]

I am very much not a member of the other party. Neither are most of the other peeps.

You're able to vote, aren't you?
I'd say that counts as you being part of the government through proxy - they are after all your representatives.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

My good will, my evaluation of negative costs, etc. I don't need a corporation to tell me no to not do it. And no corporation could stop me if I was considering otherwise, only punish me afterwards. So why do they need a monopoly?

Nobody's claimed that morals come from government. I'm saying the reality of the fact is nothing is preventing you except the threat of punishment and prevention by the government.

you entire argument seems to rest on the fact you don't think you agreed to the rules so aren't governed by them.

edit: yup

So if Wal-Mart seized control of your town, imposed all sorts of rules on you, it'd be great if one of these conditions were met:
1. You were born after this happened.
b. You get a single irrelevant vote that won't ever do anything.

 

[benjipwns]

You're able to vote, aren't you?
I'd say that counts as you being part of the government through proxy - they are after all your representatives.

So if Wal-Mart seized control of your town, imposed all sorts of rules on you, it'd be great if one of these conditions were met:
1. You were born after this happened.
b. You get a single irrelevant vote that won't ever do anything.

Nobody's claimed that morals come from government. I'm saying the reality of the fact is nothing is preventing you except the threat of punishment and prevention by the government.

So then government is unnecessary.