-
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 2014 |OT| Kay Hagan and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad News
- Thread starter bananas
- Start date
- Status
What the fuck? lol. "hey, we've got to work on our perception among women. First order of business: imply they can't understand facts like men do, and talk to them like 12 year old girls."
WayneMorse
Banned
Lady Terminator, Harkin is doomed.
She's not running against Harkin, he's retiring. She's running against Bruce Braley, and she's actually one of the strongest candidates, only down by one or two points against him.
Jack Remington
Banned
Jesus, people are still trying to push a Watergate - Benghazi equivalency.
Jack Remington
Banned
Edit: dp
I think the bigger challenge to that concept was the new industrial equipment that eliminated the advantages of slave labour, lol.
It's a depressing thought, but I think if slave labour was still worth the effort it took to maintain -- it would still be around as it had been for thousands of years.
eBay Huckster
Member
pfft, how would you know how gross it is
2010 happened, and then McCrory actually getting elected to statewide office happened, and now everyone I personally know in NC wants to move to Ohio when the exact opposite was true 2 years ago and that's kind of terrifying.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/05/john-conyers-ballot-michigan-106537.html
how can you mess this up?
how can you mess this up?
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
Yeah, someone in my state just got similar bad news after his signatures to get on the democratic primary ballot were thrown out because the people he paid to gather signatures were registered republicans.
I'm surprised for something so important you don't take a day to go through every last rule there is to make sure a surprise like this doesn't happen.
benjipwns
Banned
I think it's fair to propose that one provided the theoretical framework and the other provided the resources to put theory more into practice.
As an addendum I think there's been some evidence that slavery was actually quite inefficient even for most of its time. Along with some notion similar to modern research on worker happiness and productivity that the more humane forms tended to be more economically viable in the long term. Especially those who considered the slaves to be investments rather than merely disposable labour. Of course then, like now, not all "employers" tend to be the best businessmen or nicest people.
So where I picked up those ideas may contribute to my placing some value in the theoretical support.
benjipwns
Banned
Nobody pays attention to these because they assume it will just get done, which leads to someone else assuming it'll get done. And sometimes nobody knows the actual rules. (Seriously, call the two parties and then the clerk, if you don't get five different answers there's something wrong with the law.)
Also, this is apparently a Michigan thing, there were two others that had this happen recently along with Conyers and President/Screenplay Writer Thaddeus McCotter:
http://www.theblaze.com/blog/2012/08/09/thad-mccotter-staffers-charged-in-petition-fraud-scandal/
http://www.freep.com/article/201208...ke-petitions-for-Thaddeus-McCotter-discovered
empty vessel
Member
Nobody believes in an absolutist view of freedom of speech.
You think it should be okay to lie about the ingredients of food products?
You think it's fine for an automaker to lie about a car's safety record?
Really?
May I ask why do you prioritize the right of companies to lie about their ingredients over the right of people with peanut allergy to not die or your right to not unkownlingy eat rat meat?
Is this a slippery slope issue for you or do you have a deeper concern here?
And why not? Lying about the ingredients in food can lead to an allergic reaction and death. Same with a car's safety record. There are real consequences for lying in those sort of situations, that's why it's illegal. We put limits on speech when it can be harmful, like shouting fire in a crowded room. We have freedom of speech until it starts becoming harmful to others and infringing on their freedoms. All freedoms are like that. You can do whatever you want until it starts infringing on someone else's freedoms and rights.
makingmusic476
Member
I usually only see anarcho-capitalists arguing against such common sense limits to speech.
"Those releasing unsafe products will go out of business! New businesses would never dare repeat such mistakes for fear of losing marketshare! The invisible hand!!"
"Those releasing unsafe products will go out of business! New businesses would never dare repeat such mistakes for fear of losing marketshare! The invisible hand!!"
benjipwns
Banned
I don't. People are more than free to bring legal proceedings regarding the breach of contract and implied theft. And if you don't mind pulling in the fact that I'm an evolutionary not a revolutionary I believe we've already had a short discussion on increasing legal assistance availability.
How can speech, alone as an act, ever infringe on another's freedoms?
Please don't repeat this.
Not an anarcho-capitalist, but close enough, but that's not the argument anyway. Because for one thing, failures don't imply reasons to discard rights, even the state doesn't discard powers when it fails, it just gains them.
And if releasing unsafe products that kill customers manages to be a profitable business, then clearly the people want unsafe products that kill themselves. Don't thwart democracy and suppress free speech to protect them.
How does a dead person bring forth legal proceedings?
benjipwns
Banned
Their estate, next of kin or otherwise designated survivor?
How does criminally charging after the fact do anything for the dead person or their estate? (Other than increasing the chance of civil court victory.)
It keeps corporations from paying away the problem in theory. A company always goes the cheapest route, if it is cheaper for them to pay out some lawsuits, fines, or pay a lawyer to exhaust the resources of the people filing suit against them they will. At least if it is a criminal offense and their officials have to give up their freedom, or the state can throw their weight around, humans might have a chance at justice.
benjipwns
Banned
I guess I wonder at how often the state reaches a deal between itself and major corporations that precludes and/or caps civil liability vs. how often it actually arrests significant staff of corporations vs. how often victims collect compensation from civil suits. (vs. the hypothetical world where the caps don't exist, legal access is more democratized and the state doesn't stop you from suing GM out of business)
Especially for a labeling mistake or fraud.
But I'm willing to re-designate as absolutist outside of fraud just because this is only going to lead to a debate on the nature and role of law. And I don't want to go the theft route because that's way too unorthodox even if it's almost airtight.
Especially for a labeling mistake or fraud.
But I'm willing to re-designate as absolutist outside of fraud just because this is only going to lead to a debate on the nature and role of law. And I don't want to go the theft route because that's way too unorthodox even if it's almost airtight.
I don't know, but I'd be willing to bet not often, the state is pretty much owned by the capitalist class and 'justice' is bent in their direction. We don't need to give them more power on ideological grounds, especially using ideologies they developed and cultivated to gain social acceptance of their practices.
benjipwns
Banned
What ideology hasn't been "developed and cultivated" by the elite classes?
Perhaps there are a few, but my experience and gut tells me none. I did however qualify my statement, the capitalist propaganda is essentially founded on lies so that they can carry on with impunity. There are likely ideologies that are more founded on equality and truth than that of capitalism. That said, a good rule of thumb is that the person/group putting forth an ideology has something to gain from it.
You're still limiting free speech, if lying about your ingredients is protected speech, how can you sue anyone?
What you're advocating is enforcement through litigation, I think it's a shitty system because -
- it's inefficient
- it's after the fact, so the damage has already been done
- it's favors the rich who can afford better lawyers and longer litigation (though to be fair, that's a general defect of our legal system).
You want more examples?
Do you think that posting online about upcoming specific troop movements in Afghanistan should be allowed?
What about names information of people in the witness protection program?
benjipwns
Banned
EDIT: Hope you see this before replying Chichikov, I'm seeing some confusion here in my posts because I've been doing multiple things at once, are we wanting to discuss my philosophical views or my "ideal policy changes" taking the current situation into account? I've unfortunately been seemingly trying to straddle this line and that's not fair to your inquiry.
To avoid this I would suggest not making any other troop movements within Afghanistan except those necessary to leave from the area.
Freedom of speech doesn't render you immune to any private consequences.
Both of these apply to law and regulation too.
Absolutely. Why shouldn't the press be protected when publishing information on government activities?
To avoid this I would suggest not making any other troop movements within Afghanistan except those necessary to leave from the area.
If they own it, why can't they publish it? I wouldn't recommend it though, could be bad for business. If it's the state, then what's stopping them from publishing it if they want to?
The Librarian
Banned
Seems like you agree, so I am right.pfft, how would you know how gross it is
So in a hypothetical world where food companies are not required to label all the ingredients in a food product, you don't think they should have to do that?
So for someone like me, who's very allergic to peanuts in their natural state (and I feel sorry for people who are allergic to peanuts in all forms), and I eat some food that has peanuts in it, because they didn't tell me the ingredients, and I get sick, this food company shouldn't be held responsible? They shouldn't be criminalized for withholding crucial information?
I'm taking reality into account, but not what is feasible to pass through congress or anything.
But my point is a bit more philosophical a the moment.
Okay I'm focusing back the discussion a bit (my fault, but let's take it one at a time, we can go to the other points later if you want -
So you say consequences, what would be the basis of my suit, what's the legal framework we're talking about here?
Do you think there is an inherent difference vis-a-vis the level of freedom of speech between a system where the government can fine (or impose other punishments) a business for lying on their ingredients to a system where a civil case in the courts can fine (or impose other punishments) on a business for doing the same?
In both cases you limit a speech that a society you find undesirable through the threat of punishment.
I don't see one system being freer.
benjipwns
Banned
I'll be taking it philosophically then, in which case nobody on here will agree with anything I have to say for the rest of the conversation.
But if it was something like "this wristband will use gravitons to make your dick bigger" I don't think that's actual fraud because it's too broad and vague. But you could still sue over it. In fact, you could sue if it worked and made your dick too big, I don't care.
I think that's where you can drive the fraud truck through. But that's about it. I don't see the public interest to suppress media, physical speech, press, assembly, etc. to prevent potential harm.
Though I'm sure there's another example where I can get wishy-washy, I know of one where I'd be upset but philosophically I can't find any legitimate out.
They weren't withholding crucial information. They just weren't disclosing all information that you wanted but apparently did not ask for before purchasing and consuming.
Property rights violation if they contracted with you with specific terms on a product or service and then breached the contract by sending you bananas instead of a car or whatever.
But if it was something like "this wristband will use gravitons to make your dick bigger" I don't think that's actual fraud because it's too broad and vague. But you could still sue over it. In fact, you could sue if it worked and made your dick too big, I don't care.
One is prescriptive hence the old infamous "chilling effect" language and the other is seeking just compensation for actual damages.
I think that's where you can drive the fraud truck through. But that's about it. I don't see the public interest to suppress media, physical speech, press, assembly, etc. to prevent potential harm.
Though I'm sure there's another example where I can get wishy-washy, I know of one where I'd be upset but philosophically I can't find any legitimate out.
The Librarian
Banned
That is a crazy, utterly nonsensical point of view. Not every company has a representative standing in line to answer questions in a grocery store. They were withholding crucial information: You do know that people can get seriously sick and/or die from peanut allergies, right? People eat stuff that looks good it's not their fault they don't know what's in it, in a world where food companies don't have to list ingredients.
benjipwns
Banned
No, they weren't. They have no duty to tell everyone everything about their products.
Yes. Why would you think I don't know this?
The Librarian
Banned
Because apparently you don't think telling people a product's peanut content is crucial information. I mean, I guess it's okay it's not like people can die from this lack of knowledge...wait.
Utterly nonsensical.
benjipwns
Banned
It's crucial information for some people and not for others. And where did I say nobody could tell anyone, that you would be forbidden from being told what products contain peanuts? Or that food manufacturers could not voluntarily use something like the Kosher label? Or that someone couldn't create an app that scans bar-codes and tells you? Or that stores couldn't do their own labeling? The options are endless and non of them require the imposition of a duty and removal of rights.
Or we get a thalidomide situation, where it took 4 years for the invisible hand to regulate in Europe, and 0 years for the FDA.
So you're saying that when I'm purchasing a product I'm entering an implicit contractual obligation with the company I'm buying it from and you can't lie on a contract because it violate my property rights?
First of all, holy shit that's a weird way of looking at things, but more importantly, what's the difference in regards to free speech?
You're just privatizing the enforcement of it, we can talk about whether or not it's a good thing in a moment, but regarding the "amount" of freedom of speech, I see no difference.
If you think we should allow people to make vague claims that can be done in both systems, same goes if you think we shouldn't.
And I'm not sure I get your chilling effect point, both systems have that, in fact, you want both system to have it. I assume it's our goal as a society to not have people sell us rat meat in our burgers, right?
And now they have twice as many Scanners as the US.
Thanks Obama.
What number of deaths is acceptable before the market course corrects?
Should the company I am about to enter contract with reimburse me on the time and phone call when I am trying to find out if I should by their product? If I buy something and later find out that it is inedible, how much time is acceptable to spend on getting a reimbursement?
At what point does it just become easier for the society via the state mandate that products list their ingredients? Why shouldn't the state/society be able to regulate that, we're the ones that permit the company to exist, I'm pretty sure that means we can define the terms of its existence as well.
benjipwns
Banned
The benefits of competition! And the failure or so many governments.
The damn criminals escaped justice! If only this kind of thing was criminalized.
And now our own government sells us out to Celegene:
This has become completely lost and muddled, we aren't even truly talking about speech here, none of this has been. Torts or laws against fraud aren't against the speech, but the theft via breach of contract. The speech aka the contract is merely evidence to the crime.
And it's silly for me to try and centrally plan reality to be flawless so I don't know why I acquiesced to the double standard. People and entities can sue each other for whatever reason they want. It's up to their agreed upon venue of arbitration to determine the contract breach and the methods and the compensation.
Currently that's the state because it has seized that authority. And the court system already exists to arbitrate this manner, there is no need for further criminalization. Just compensation can be a term of imprisonment by the agreement of both parties if that's satisfactory for the prevailing victim.
I don't know, society doesn't have goals. And if it did, maybe it wants rat meat who am I to tell it no?
Because you don't permit their company to exist. You don't own it or any of the various people who operate it. Why can't they regulate you? Or tell you that you have to eat your way out of a swimming pool full of peanuts?
Why is it okay for you, or you and some other random people, or some bigger corporation to tell them what to do? Merely because you claim ownership of those people?
Dude what?
You started by claiming that you're against any limitation of free speech, and I'm just trying to show you that it's not the case.
I the discussion about where's the we draw the line of protected speech is very important (and by the way, I think we currently have way too many limitation on free speech). The problem is that when you talk in absolutes like "I'm against all limitation of free speech" we can't get anywhere, this is why I'm focusing on that point.
Are you actually arguing that point or just having a laugh here?
That's not what I'm saying, at all.
An of course society has goals, to increase prosperity, health, happiness, to laugh at England as they embarrass themselves in the World Cup.
You name it.
The benefits of competition! And the failure or so many governments.
The damn criminals escaped justice! If only this kind of thing was criminalized.
And now our own government sells us out to Celegene:
#welcometotheownzone #fuckingrekt
benjipwns
Banned
How can a state exist if corporations can't exist without one? Is this chicken and the egg territory?
This is fair criticism because I did go two different ways, and tried to fuse them back together rather than just starting over. I'm against any state limitation on speech. I don't find there to be private "limitations" on speech because there's no inherent coercion involved. And I don't consider libel or slander to be actionable, but the private courts in anarchtopia can do whatever they want. There's probably other crap.
Nope, I disagree. "Society" isn't a real entity, it's just a concept, individuals have goals. If we are to assume society is a real thing, then all of its goals are endlessly contradictory. Define "prosperity" for example. We can have "societies" GDP shoot up even if it's all going to the budget for Sir Alan's next Apprentice series.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
I've never understood where "private courts" would derive their authority from. The agreement of both parties involved in a case? But then wouldn't the party that believes its going to lose just not recognize that authority? But then perhaps they would because they want to stay within the system for future cases? But then aren't you just constructing a de-facto government with its ability to make binding commandments?
Uh what? No it's not it is nothing like that, the state exists because of humans, it is a construct created by us to serve us. Corporations are too, and they are protected by the state in so far as they do not harm humans, however because of people who have swallowed the capitalist propaganda (such as it seems yourself) and the capitalists running the corporations, they are often able to get away with harming humans and society after cooping our government.
If you can sue me for a large amount of money, how is that not coercion?
Society goals are just an aggregation of individual goals, of course, I thought that goes without saying.
And I was talking in abstract terms, but for example, society can decide it has a goal to put a man on the moon, that's a goal.
Arbitration exists, and there's nothing terribly wrong with them, but yeah, because they require mutual consent, their utility is limited.
benjipwns
Banned
You could subscribe to a service and that service negotiates with other services, they could have insurance pools, etc. Sure you could withdraw but that would probably increase your premiums or limit the pool of services who would want to contract with you.
Huemer writes about it quite a bit in the god-king of anarchist works, and Friedman is required mentioning since he was the first popular person to try and posit it, but in both instances those are just possibilities because the benefit is actually the dynamic and democratic proliferation of services.
The state is a corporation. It is no different from all the other corporations except it claims it has a legitimate monopoly on the use of force and leverages this claim to establish authority over the corporations, people and land within its purview.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked