Support NeoGAF

[benjipwns]

Also, plenty of people don't act just for profit.

Ah, okay, so they won't educate children because they're jerks or something then?

 

[Dominican Power]

She's gonna have to distance herself from Obama especially if his approval continues to tank.

That said,


smdh

What a clown Hilary is.

 

[The Technomancer]

The problem with the complete privatization of education is that its something that everyone, to some extent needs, and yet its not necessarily true that in the process of competition every socioeconomic niche will be served because not every socioeconomic niche is necessarily profitable. There are times where we need to take a loss on providing to some segment of the population in the name of externalized benefits. In the same way that externalized costs are a problem, externalized benefits are an issue with the privatization of everything. No company is going to invest in something that produces significant external benefits over internal profitability, and yet thats exactly what the education system needs to be if its going to provide service to everyone

 

[benjipwns]

The problem with the complete privatization of education is that its something that everyone, to some extent needs, and yet its not necessarily true that in the process of competition every socioeconomic niche will be served because not every socioeconomic niche is necessarily profitable. There are times where we need to take a loss on providing to some segment of the population in the name of externalized benefits.

But the state doesn't do this anymore than the rest of society, especially when it has a monopoly in an area.

If society wants to educate all children or attempt to, this doesn't require a monopolized state-run system.

Look at food. We don't assign you to a single store near you, require you to shop at it, require you to "purchase" a certain amount and type of goods, and not allow you to shop elsewhere. Why then when it comes to education do we decide this is somehow different and that we not only need a monopoly but need to actively reduce parent/local/outside power from having any say in the process and punish you if you try to "shop" outside the system?

If society wants to educate all children, it will undertake that voluntarily. There is no need for monopolized coercive violence at all. If society doesn't, then it's not democratic to impose such a goal and related institutions on it.

And to the common rejoinder: food stamps are effectively a type of vouchers.

 

[JesseEwiak]

But the state doesn't do this anymore than the rest of society, especially when it has a monopoly in an area.

If society wants to educate all children or attempt to, this doesn't require a monopolized state-run system.

Look at food. We don't assign you to a single store near you, require you to shop at it, require you to "purchase" a certain amount and type of goods, and not allow you to shop elsewhere. Why then when it comes to education do we decide this is somehow different and that we not only need a monopoly but need to actively reduce parent/local/outside power from having any say in the process and punish you if you try to "shop" outside the system?

If society wants to educate all children, it will undertake that voluntarily. There is no need for monopolized coercive violence at all. If society doesn't, then it's not democratic to impose such a goal and related institutions on it.

And to the common rejoinder: food stamps are effectively a type of vouchers.

It doesn't require a public monopoly, but it seems to work better than countries such as Chile, where they've implemented a privatized voucher system thanks to Uncle Milton Friendman helping out ole' Pinochet for both secondary and university systems and it worked out so well that the students ended up rioting over the massive and endemic inequality between schools (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011–13_Chilean_student_protests).

 

[benjipwns]

it worked out so well that the students ended up rioting over the massive and endemic inequality between schools

What can I tell you, Americans don't riot over things like other nations for whatever reason. They just seem to accept the massive and endemic inequality between government schools.

in 2003, a constitutional reform established free and compulsory Secondary Education for all the inhabitants of Chile up to 18 years old.

So there should be no complaints. Free universal mandatory education has been decreed.

 

[The Technomancer]

But the state doesn't do this anymore than the rest of society, especially when it has a monopoly in an area.

Yes it does. Public schools, by virtue of not charging direct entrance fees, operate at a loss. The benefit is entirely externalized, and so the costs are recouped from the external world via taxation

If society wants to educate all children, it will undertake that voluntarily. There is no need for monopolized coercive violence at all. If society doesn't, then it's not democratic to impose such a goal and related institutions on it.

If your "free agent" utopia would ever be remotely possible universal education would be a requirement for it not to devolve into a centralized monopolized system again. Without universal education knowledge disparity leads immediately to exploitation as illiterate, inumerate people voluntarily agree to things they don't understand. Which means that you basically have to count on society completely agreeing to universal education. What makes you think that society wouldn't discriminate on the basis of socioeconomic factors?

 

[Wilsongt]

Pack it up, Dumbocrats.

Republican takeover of Senate appears more and more assured

The decision by Sen. John Walsh (D-Mont.) not to seek election in November in the wake of a plagiarism scandal is the latest piece of good news for Republicans as they strive to take control of the Senate in less than three months.

Walsh’s departure from the race came in the same week that two Republican senators — Pat Roberts in Kansas and Lamar Alexander in Tennessee — defeated tea party challengers in primary fights, ensuring that every GOP senator seeking reelection would be the party’s nominee.

These past seven days typified the fates of the two parties this election cycle. Democrats have been hit by retirements in tough states — Montana, West Virginia, South Dakota and, to a lesser extent, Iowa — and Republicans haven’t nominated the sort of extreme candidates who lack broader appeal in a general election.

Those realities — along with a national playing field in which a handful of incumbent Democrats are defending Republican-leaning seats in places where President Obama is deeply unpopular — have made a GOP takeover a better-than-50/50 proposition.

Let’s go through the races.

Walsh’s decision not to run takes what was an uphill climb for Democrats and turns it into something close to a no-chance race. (A committee of Democrats will pick the party’s nominee by Aug. 20.) Montana joins the contests for open seats in West Virginia and South Dakota in that category, meaning that, unless something drastically changes, Republicans should have three takeovers in the bank — a nice head start going into Election Day.

That means the party needs three more pickups to gain the Senate majority. And it has more than enough seats in play to do it. Democratic-held seats in Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Iowa, Louisiana and North Carolina are competitive at this point. (Races in Michigan, New Hampshire and Oregon seem to be moving in the Democrats’ direction.)

Of that group, the seats in Louisiana and Arkansas seem to be the most endangered for Democrats, in large part because of the strongly Republican nature of both states.

Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.) has run a very good campaign, while Rep. Tom Cotton (R) has underwhelmed somewhat. (To be fair, Cotton, a freshman member of Congress, entered the race with impossibly high expectations.) And yet, the public polling in the contest gives Cotton a narrow edge. (Internal polling shows Pryor in a slightly stronger position.)

In Louisiana, Sen. Mary Landrieu (D) has a wide lead over Rep. Bill Cassidy (R) as well as two other Republicans in the contest. But Landrieu seems unlikely to win more than 50 percent of the vote Nov. 4, and if she doesn’t, she will face a runoff Dec. 6 against the second-place vote-getter, who is likely to be Cassidy. Head-to-head polling between Landrieu and Cassidy gives the slightest edge to the challenger.

Iowa, Colorado and North Carolina fit comfortably into the next tier of vulnerability. Iowa State Sen. Joni Ernst (R) has run a terrific campaign for the seat of retiring Sen. Tom Harkin (D) and has been aided by the stumbles of Rep. Bruce Braley (D). Republicans’ last-minute recruiting coup in Colorado landed them Rep. Cory Gardner, although Sen. Mark Udall (D) hasn’t been caught by surprise and is working hard to paint the GOP congressman as extreme on social issues. The North Carolina contest is the quietest close race in the country; Sen. Kay Hagan (D) isn’t well-defined as a candidate, but she has endured millions of dollars in spending by conservative groups relatively well. State House Speaker Thom Tillis performed well in the Republican primary, but his stewardship of the chamber will be a major issue this fall.

Then there is Sen. Mark Begich (D-Alaska), who has run a solid campaign and is well-known and liked in the state. Republicans have a late primary — on Aug. 19 — and former U.S. attorney Dan Sullivan is expected to emerge with the party’s nomination. Early polling gives Begich a slight lead, but Sullivan remains relatively unknown and would seem to have room to grow.

While Republicans are playing lots of offense this cycle, their path to the Senate majority is complicated by Democrats who are seriously contesting two GOP-held seats: in Georgia and Kentucky.

Of the two, Kentucky seems the better opportunity, given Sen. Mitch McConnell’s middling poll numbers and the able campaign being run by state Secretary of State Alison Lundergan Grimes. Polling gives McConnell a slight edge, but even his most ardent supporters acknowledge that his vote ceiling is somewhere between 51 and 52 percent.

Georgia’s open seat is competitive because of a terrific recruit by Democrats in Michelle Nunn. She has performed exceptionally well on both the fundraising and polling fronts. But Republicans picked businessman David Perdue as their nominee, countering Nunn’s “outsider” brand, and Georgia remains a comfortably Republican state — particularly in a midterm election such as this one.

Add it all up, and Republicans have enough races within the margin of error to think that even the slightest national breeze blowing in their favor — and that wind looks likely to be there — will be enough to push them over the top in a few of these very close contests.

Democrats’ best hope lies in localizing races in places such as Arkansas, Alaska and Colorado, and maybe picking off Georgia or Kentucky. That looks possible — but not probable — at the moment.

IMPEACHMENT HYPE 2015!

 

[benjipwns]

Yes it does. Public schools, by virtue of not charging direct entrance fees, operate at a loss.

So they're going to go bankrupt eventually. That doesn't mean they serve niches any better than the rest of society.

Without universal education knowledge disparity leads immediately to exploitation as illiterate, inumerate people voluntarily agree to things they don't understand.

Like in the current system of monopolized state-run education?

What makes you think that society wouldn't discriminate on the basis of socioeconomic factors?

What makes you think that the state doesn't?

 

[The Technomancer]

Like in the current system of monopolized state-run education?



What makes you think that the state doesn't?

You aren't advancing any argument for why a private system would be better. Why would a private system provide more universal quality of education? Remember, the entire premise of your privatized world depends on it being stable and not devolving back into the monopolized system we have now or else whats the point?

I know the state discriminates, but I feel comfortable saying that it discriminates less than the market would because the market is incentivized to discriminate against avenues that aren't profitable. Tell me why your system wouldn't have the same issues

 

[JesseEwiak]

What can I tell you, Americans don't riot over things like other nations for whatever reason. They just seem to accept the massive and endemic inequality between government schools.

Well, things are only bad for the poor and underclass in the US (and of course, libertarian reforms would only make those schools worse, as the cream of the crop would be shuttled over to good schools and there's not much profit in educating the children of single parent drug dealers and such in Camden, NJ or the southside of Chicago). How the evil government, mostly when run by neoliberals and conservatives by the way, get away with this, is they actually keep white (important) middle-class (more important) children well educated.

Now, crazy right-wingers have forgotten this and tried to destroy public education in various states, and hell, it's led to the possibility of a Democrat winning the Governor's Mansion in Kansas.

So there should be no complaints. Free universal mandatory education has been decreed.

Well, they mandated free and compulsory secondary education. It didn't require any funding of said secondary schools, which the Chilean government failed to do, thus leading to the protest movements. If your "free" school is a pile of stones with little funding from your poor village, then yeah, you have free compulsory secondary education, but the only actual education is being done at the school with tuition down the road.

 

[benjipwns]

You aren't advancing any argument for why a private system would be better. Why would a private system provide more universal quality of education? Remember, the entire premise of your privatized world depends on it being stable and not devolving back into the monopolized system we have now or else whats the point?

No, it doesn't.

The relevant matter is that one is voluntary, accountable, diverse and democratic and the other is not.

I know the state discriminates. The state also has mechanisms in place that we can use to gradually shift that discrimination. Tell me why your system wouldn't have the same issues.

Who says it won't? I'm saying you shouldn't involuntarily monopolize this power at the expense of democracy and the dynamics of nature.

Well, things are only bad for the poor and underclass in the US (and of course, libertarian reforms would only make those schools worse, as the cream of the crop would be shuttled over to good schools and there's not much profit in educating the children of single parent drug dealers and such in Camden, NJ or the southside of Chicago). How the evil government, mostly when run by neoliberals and conservatives by the way, get away with this, is they actually keep white (important) middle-class (more important) children well educated.

So the monopolized system is abused by the elite at the expense of the underclasses, so we should keep it rather than reducing its monopoly because returning power to the people will somehow result in the same thing as now.

Well, they mandated free and compulsory secondary education. It didn't require any funding of said secondary schools, which the Chilean government failed to do, thus leading to the protest movements. If your "free" school is a pile of stones with little funding from your poor village, then yeah, you have free compulsory secondary education, but the only actual education is being done at the school with tuition down the road.

Oh, so there's profit involved after all.

 

[The Technomancer]

Well, things are only bad for the poor and underclass in the US (and of course, libertarian reforms would only make those schools worse, as the cream of the crop would be shuttled over to good schools and there's not much profit in educating the children of single parent drug dealers and such in Camden, NJ or the southside of Chicago). How the evil government, mostly when run by neoliberals and conservatives by the way, get away with this, is they actually keep white (important) middle-class (more important) children well educated.

What I'm getting from Benji is that if "society" decides those people aren't worth educating than that's just the price of freedom. But then that just leads to the exact pattern of exploitation that produces our current system

No, it doesn't.

The relevant matter is that one is voluntary, accountable, diverse and democratic and the other is not.

And unsustainable. If the majority decides that its desirable to forcibly exploit a subclass and there are no greater institutions that restrict the majority's power than your system rapidly ceases to be voluntary for the entire population.

 

[JesseEwiak]

No, it doesn't.

The relevant matter is that one is voluntary, accountable, diverse and democratic and the other is not.

I can vote out my school board. I can vote out my Governor, who is in charge of education policy. Hell, I can vote out my Senator, Representative, or President, if I don't feel they're pushing the correct education policy.

I can't vote out the Board of Director's of Education Corporation of America. All I can hope is that their is competition in my area, and if there isn't, just like there isn't much competition in low income areas for food (google "food deserts"), then I'm screwed.

 

[benjipwns]

And unsustainable. If the majority decides that its desirable to forcibly exploit a subclass and there are no greater institutions that restrict the majority's power than your system rapidly ceases to be voluntary for the entire population.

Which is why we shouldn't monopolize power in institutions like the state.

I can vote out my school board. I can vote out my Governor, who is in charge of education policy. Hell, I can vote out my Senator, Representative, or President, if I don't feel they're pushing the correct education policy.

No, you can't.

 

[The Technomancer]

Which is why we shouldn't monopolize power in institutions like the state.

What happens when a bunch of people voluntarily decide to work together and their collective power is enough to create a de-facto monopoly?

 

[benjipwns]

What happens when a bunch of people voluntarily decide to work together and their collective power is enough to create a de-facto monopoly?

So your argument is that we should just give up and accept a single world government or what?

 

[JesseEwiak]

No, you can't.

I can see a world where I vote out my local school board member, if I convince enough people policy should change.

I see no world where I can vote out the Board of Director's of the local for-profit school in my area. Just like I can't vote out the Board of Director's of any of the equally shitty ISP's, cable companies, or other various utilities that should be regulated as such in my area.

 

[benjipwns]

I see no world where I can vote out the Board of Director's of the local for-profit school in my area. Just like I can't vote out the Board of Director's of any of the equally shitty ISP's, cable companies, or other various utilities that should be regulated as such in my area.

Well, yeah, they've all been granted monopolies by other institutions you can't vote out.

But you can vote out McDonald's in favor of Wendy's for lunch.

 

[The Technomancer]

So your argument is that we should just give up and accept a single world government or what?

No, although I'm not opposed to a world government, my argument is that your system of entirely private voluntary action will inevitably degenerate back to a system resembling the one we have currently. Only, because it wouldn't have the public institutions we've spent centuries engineering it would be more exploitative than what we have currently. Child labor was a thing. And companies didn't just stop doing it out of the goodness of their hearts, they had to be coerced. I understand the ideal of a system without coercion, but my argument is that its not possible, not for any length of time. Inevitable parties A and B realize that they can team up and get more out of bullying C than they could working independently.

To tie it back to education:

Who says it won't? I'm saying you shouldn't involuntarily monopolize this power at the expense of democracy and the dynamics of nature.

If your system of voluntary democracy still suffers from discrimination in education, that discrimination will lead to inequality in knowledge and illiteracy that will in turn prime a segment of the population for exploitation which leads exactly back to the dynamics that you claim you're trying to escape

 

[JesseEwiak]

Well, yeah, they've all been granted monopolies by other institutions you can't vote out.

But you can vote out McDonalds in favor of Wendy's for lunch.

Actually, I have a couple of choices for ISP in my area. The fact one is slightly worse than the other doesn't make any of the choices good. I have no option for South Korea or even Scandinavian Internet in my area.

And yeah, you kind of proved your point. If the choice is between McDonald's or Wendy's to get shitty food, with no option to say, go to a local food market that has had various federal or state grants (http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/fmpp), that's not a good choice for people who have no access to the farmers market, even if they have a "choice."

 

[benjipwns]

And yeah, you kind of proved your point. If the choice is between McDonald's or Wendy's to get shitty food, with no option to say, go to a local food market that has had various federal or state grants (http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/fmpp), that's not a good choice for people who have no access to the farmers market, even if they have a "choice."

The whims of nature are no reason to violate other peoples rights.

No, although I'm not opposed to a world government, my argument is that your system of entirely private voluntary action will inevitably degenerate back to a system resembling the one we have currently. Only, because it wouldn't have the public institutions we've spent centuries engineering it would be more exploitative than what we have currently. Child labor was a thing. And companies didn't just stop doing it out of the goodness of their hearts, they had to be coerced. I understand the ideal of a system without coercion, but my argument is that its not possible, not for any length of time. Inevitable parties A and B realize that they can team up and get more out of bullying C than they could working independently.

Child labor was/is a good thing. It provided more income to the families that needed it.

The fact is, as I already stated but not in reply to you, I agree with you that people will continue to use violence against people they consider cultural enemies. I'm arguing that it shouldn't be accepted. We already live in the world of entirely voluntary interaction, we already live in an anarchy, so why do we accept that certain groups get to commit violence when an individual cannot?

It's wrong for me to steal your money, kidnap children and educate them at my own personal school. But why is it "okay" if a bunch of people with more guns do it? Why is it "okay" if they hold a vote beforehand and you lost?

It's wrong for me to round up a gang and bomb your cities. Why is it "okay" for Israel to do it? (Ignore the specifics of that conflict, but just the notion that we accept it as what nations do.)

Why not just accept this but desire to move more in that direction? To pursue greater coercion, greater centralization and monopolization of power in a corporate elite, to eliminate diversity, democracy and accountability? I find it fascinating that the injustices of the system are used to justify further injustices rather than a rejection of the assumption that we must violate others and monopolize who can do the violating.

 

[JesseEwiak]

It's wrong for me to steal your money, kidnap children and educate them at my own personal school. But why is it "okay" if a bunch of people with more guns do it? Why is it "okay" if they hold a vote beforehand and you lost?

Statements like this are why libertarians are considered crazy people outside of the Internet. Nobody is "forced" to go to public school. Especially in the US. Hell, in some states, depending on the regulation, you can throw your kid in front of the TV, say you're home schooling him, and then, take the standardized test for your kid they mail it to you.

Find me somebody who actually feels like that they're being forced by gunpoint to send their kids to public schools who also doesn't want a theocracy running things and you might have a point.

It's wrong for me to round up a gang and bomb your cities. Why is it "okay" for Israel to do it? (Ignore the specifics of that conflict, but just the notion that we accept it as what nations do.)

It's not wrong if you can win the war.

 

[benjipwns]

It's not wrong if you can win the war.

Might makes right indeed.

 

[JesseEwiak]

Might makes right indeed.

When it comes to foreign policy, pretty much, yup. It's terrible, but hey, America committed war crimes it'll never be punished for in WWII, to name one example. Revolution's have rarely been successful because they had the better message, they were successful because they had better tactics on the battlefield.

That's why we settled on liberal democracy. Because it's the best of a bunch of terrible ideas for governing a society. Flaws and all.

 

[benjipwns]

When it comes to foreign policy, pretty much, yup. It's terrible, but hey, America committed war crimes it'll never be punished for in WWII, to name one example.

Now you're disagreeing with "might makes right" though. Because they aren't crimes unless there's some other morality that exists outside the inherently justified actions of the dominant power.

 

[benjipwns]

Let's switch to something we can all agree on, that Lindsey Graham is the smartest foreign policy expert to ever sit in the U.S. Senate: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0yVcEOjWOA

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM, R-S.C., ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE: Well, that's not accurate. When I look at the map that the General Keane described, I think of the United States. I think of an American city in flames because of the terrorist ability to operate in Syria and Iraq. The director of national security, the FBI director, the director of homeland security has said that the ISIS presence in Syria where hundreds of Americans and thousands of European fighters have gone, represents a direct threat to the United States, and now, their enclave in Iraq.

So, Mr. President, you have never once spoken directly to the American people about the threat we face from being attacked from Syria, now Iraq. What is your strategy to stop these people from attacking the homeland? They have expressed a desire to do so.

So, there's no political reconciliation in Baghdad going to protect the American homeland. That has to be a commander-in-chief with a strategy and a vision. This commander-in=chief has no strategy. He has no vision.

This is a situation where he knows better than everybody else. He was told he should get engaged in Syria three years ago by his national security team. He said no, his military commander said you should leave troops in Iraq as an insurance policy, and he got the no.

...

WALLACE: Senator Graham, are you saying we should go back to war in Iraq?

GRAHAM: I'm saying Iraq and Syria combined represent a direct threat to our homeland. The day the president raised his right hand to become president for a second time, his constitutional responsibility as commander-in-chief trumps any political promise.

What is going on in Washington when the FBI director, when the head of national intelligence, the CIA, the homeland security secretary tells every member of Congress, including the president, we're about to be attacked in a serious way because of the threat emanating from Syria and Iraq?

His responsibility as president is to defend this nation. If he does not go on the offensive against ISIS, ISIL, whatever you want to call these guys, they are coming here. This is not just about Baghdad. This is not just about Syria. It is about our homeland.

And if we get attacked because he has no strategy to protect us, then he will have committed a blunder for the ages.

...

GRAHAM: Do you really want to let America be attacked? You're having people on the ground slaughtering Christians. They have four goals: to make every Muslim bend to their will, to destroy the Christian population in the Mideast, to drive us out, and eventually destroy Israel. So, here's my statement to the president -- Mr. President, your own people are telling you we face an attack on this region. Your game plan, the actions you're taking, cannot protect us. There is no substitute for America being involved in terms of eradicating ISIS. If we don't hit them in Syria, you'll never solve the problem in Iraq.

Three years ago, Mr. President, you were told by your national security team, get involved, armed the rebels because this problem will grow. You said no.

You made many, many bad bets. Your strategy is failing. You told us bin Laden is dead, we're safe.

Since bin Laden has died, there are more terrorist organizations with more safe havens, with more money, with more weapons, and more capabilities to attack the homeland than there was before 9/11.

Mr. President, if you don't adjust your strategy, these people are coming here.

 

[thepotatoman]

The whims of nature are no reason to violate other peoples rights.


Child labor was/is a good thing. It provided more income to the families that needed it.

The fact is, as I already stated but not in reply to you, I agree with you that people will continue to use violence against people they consider cultural enemies. I'm arguing that it shouldn't be accepted. We already live in the world of entirely voluntary interaction, we already live in an anarchy, so why do we accept that certain groups get to commit violence when an individual cannot?

It's wrong for me to steal your money, kidnap children and educate them at my own personal school. But why is it "okay" if a bunch of people with more guns do it? Why is it "okay" if they hold a vote beforehand and you lost?

It's wrong for me to round up a gang and bomb your cities. Why is it "okay" for Israel to do it? (Ignore the specifics of that conflict, but just the notion that we accept it as what nations do.)

Why not just accept this but desire to move more in that direction? To pursue greater coercion, greater centralization and monopolization of power in a corporate elite, to eliminate diversity, democracy and accountability? I find it fascinating that the injustices of the system are used to justify further injustices rather than a rejection of the assumption that we must violate others and monopolize who can do the violating.

What the hell? Child labor is a terrible thing. Even when i was a full on libertarian believer going to ron paul rallies, I could never imagine tossing children to the competitiveness of the free market and expect things to work out best there.

Your whole philosophy is flawed because you are acting like children are willing free market actors in this whole thing. Children don't have control over their choices and actions like adults do, and they do not have the experience required to know if they are screwing themselves over or if other people are screwing them.

The child's supervisors better fill the role of rational actors, but children are people too, and adults are their supervisors, not owners. Supervisors can't just exploit the labor of a child who has no say in anything. The role of the supervisor by default makes kids unable to really say no. That's what makes it basically indentured servitude, which is 100% against the libertarian philosophy.

Likewise, education is extremely important to the exact thing that makes libertarianism so appealing, meritocracy. How can you work to establish a system that rewards people who succeed, when you make it so that a person's life can be ruined before they even make it to the age where they can start honestly making decisions for themselves?

But then again I guess you aren't a libertarian. If i remember correctly, you're a self identified anarchist.

Man, at least libertarians have a real economic theory to explain how things can be taken care of without as much government interference. I don't even know where to start with someone who's simply saying there is no problems in any society, outside of the use of "coercive violence", as if violence was the one and only way to coerce anyone into doing something against their will. Hunger usually works just as well to coerce people into doing anything.

Seriously, I'm curious where you came up with such a thing. Is there a book or person that you think summarize your core social theories? Something that fleshes things out further than the statement that coercive violence is the only immoral action, and that every government action is a coercive violent action. Something that actually takes on the job of describing how an ideal world would work under that philosophy.

 

[benjipwns]

What the hell? Child labor is a terrible thing

You're applying standards of a vastly wealthier society to a much poorer one. In poor societies, especially subsistence agricultural based ones, child labor is necessary both if families don't want to starve to death and if they want to build wealth.

I don't even know where to start with someone who's simply saying there is no problems in any society, outside of the use of "coercive violence"
...
the statement that coercive violence is the only immoral action, and that every government action is a coercive violent action

Never have I said any of this.

as if violence was the one and only way to coerce anyone into doing something against their will. Hunger usually works just as well to coerce people into doing anything

Hunger doesn't have agency.

Is there a book or person that you think summarize your core social theories?

Huemer, Michael. The problem of political authority : an examination of the right to coerce and the duty to obey. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013.

Bakunin, Mikhail A., and Marshall Shatz. Statism and anarchy. Cambridge New York: Cambridge University Press, 1990.

Bastiat, Frédéric. The Law. Dean Russell, trans. Irvington-on-Hudson, NY: Foundation for Economic Education, Inc. 1998. Library of Economics and Liberty [Online] available from http://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basLaw.html; accessed 11 August 2014; Internet.

Hayek, Friedrich A. The road to serfdom. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994.

Kropotkin, Petr A., and Thomas H. Huxley. Mutual aid, a factor of evolution. Boston: Extending Horizons Books, 1955.

Mises, Ludwig von. The clash of group interests Auburn, Ala: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2011.

Rothbard, Murray N. Egalitarianism as a revolt against nature, and other essays. Auburn, Ala: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2000.

Something that actually takes on the job of describing how an ideal world would work under that philosophy.

That which exists is the ideal world, I do not presume the perfect knowledge of an utopian.

 

[East Lake]

BoA fraud.

In October, a jury found Countrywide and a senior mortgage banker, Rebecca Mairone, liable for fraud for having sold thousands of bad loans to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Last week, U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff ordered Bank of America to pay $1.3 billion in that matter. The sum was relatively modest; more striking was the judge's commentary. Rakoff said the Countrywide loan-approval program was "the vehicle for a brazen fraud by the defendants, driven by a hunger for profits and oblivious to the harms thereby visited, not just on the immediate victims but also on the financial system as a whole."

This case is the only one in which a large bank has had to defend its conduct in the housing boom, and it challenges the idea that bringing fraud prosecutions in this area is a hopeless endeavor. Apparently juries can cope with financial complexity after all. An assistant U.S. attorney explained what went on at Countrywide without needing to dwell on the arcana of collateralized mortgage obligations.

Testimony revealed, for example, that as the housing boom was ebbing, Countrywide substituted software for human judgment to process mortgage applications on a fast track. Loans were approved in as little as 10 days, versus the normal 60, in a program called "high-speed swim lane." The bankers abbreviated that to HSSL -- and pronounced it "hustle." The program lasted only nine months yet managed to write almost 30,000 subprime mortgages, which Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bought for about $5 billion. Defect rates on stated-income loans (in which the borrower's income isn't verified) reached 70 percent.

Other reasons, aside from complexity, have been advanced to justify the lack of prosecutions. One is that the U.S. government was itself involved because of its housing policies. The trial showed it was Countrywide, not a U.S. official, who told loan officers not to screen out risky borrowers and to fill their quota of applications before going home at night. It was Countrywide that rewarded bankers with the speediest approval rates, no matter how poorly underwritten their loans.

The idea that well-shielded executives can't be implicated also got debunked. Testimony emerged that Mairone silenced and penalized bankers who complained about the quality of hustle loans. Rakoff is requiring Mairone to personally pay her $1 million penalty. Perhaps most important, the case suggests that midlevel employees could have been persuaded to give evidence against their seniors, enabling prosecutors to move up the chain.

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-08-06/bank-of-america-s-penalty-misses-the-point

 

[benjipwns]

Countrywide bankers complained bitterly to Mairone in March 2008 when Chief Executive Officer Angelo Mozilo testified to Congress that the bank was carefully screening all its applicants to minimize defaults. Mozilo never faced trial. A criminal investigation was quietly dropped in 2011, and he avoided a civil trial when he agreed to pay $67.5 million, only a third of which came out of his own pocket, in settlement.

It's good to have Friends.

 

[East Lake]

Thought this was a cool visual for different state economy stuff.

http://www.bloomberg.com/visual-data/state-by-state/q/jaaacaj/da:wq1d::0:::

 

[The Technomancer]

The whims of nature are no reason to violate other peoples rights.


Child labor was/is a good thing. It provided more income to the families that needed it.

...

Why not just accept this but desire to move more in that direction? To pursue greater coercion, greater centralization and monopolization of power in a corporate elite, to eliminate diversity, democracy and accountability? I find it fascinating that the injustices of the system are used to justify further injustices rather than a rejection of the assumption that we must violate others and monopolize who can do the violating.

...I find it fascinating that child labor isn' t on your list of "injustices". It reaaaaly puts your priorities in perspective. I don't honestly know what you claim to stand for anymore, since you've literally just said that you're fine with one of the most historically despicable forms of exploitation which goes against what principles I thought you had.

EDIT: Christ, do you think child labor would have just ended on its own? No, it wouldn't have. We would still have it to day, I am 100% certain of this. We had people suggesting this like last year

 

[benjipwns]

I wasn't listing injustices, let alone trying to create a comprehensive list of them.

I also find sweatshops to be better than starvation and crushing poverty. I'm okay with having that priority.

 

[The Technomancer]

I wasn't listing injustices, let alone trying to create a comprehensive list of them.

I also find sweatshops to be better than starvation and crushing poverty. I'm okay with having that priority.

But you know whats better than sweatshops and starvation and poverty? An external agency coercing companies into no longer using child labor. Hell you want a reason why I'll voluntarily submit to an authority like that? I'll take all of it, the authority and the laws, the NSA and the social security, the good and the bad, if it means that there's an authority stepping in so that I can go to school as a child and not go off to work at my hometown's Chrysler plant

Do you really think child labor would have ended on its own? Why? And you can't say "as people got wealthier they wouldn't have needed their kids to work", the whole point of child labor was that they were paying dirt poor wages that therefore required the entire family to work.

 

[benjipwns]

You're making an assumption that a vastly poorer society and its correspondingly poorer employers could afford to pay modern wages.

 

[kehs]

.

 

[benjipwns]

This clown David Gregory just let's him rant about how this is Obama's fault on his own fucking show. No backbone what so ever.

Maybe he knows...

SIREN: Chuck Todd, a political obsessive and rabid sports fan, is the likely successor to David Gregory as moderator of “Meet the Press,” with the change expected to be announced in coming weeks, according to top political sources. The move is an effort by NBC News President Deborah Turness to restore passion and insider cred to a network treasure that has been adrift since the death in 2008 of the irreplaceable Tim Russert. Although Todd is not a classic television performer guaranteed to wow focus groups, his NBC bosses have been impressed by his love of the game, which brings with it authenticity, sources, and a loyal following among newsmakers and political junkies.

Gregory’s next move is unknown, but he’s unlikely to remain at the network – a stunning turn for a quick-rising star with a broadcasting polish and on-air versatility that once made him a natural candidate to be a future “Today” show host. It’s unclear whether Gregory or Todd knows about the big move, likely to be in place before year’s end.

 

[benjipwns]

Byron York gets the PoliGAF memo:
http://washingtonexaminer.com/north...-hugely-important-senate-race/article/2551875

North Carolina's nondescript, virtually unnoticed, hugely important Senate race

RALEIGH, N.C. — Thom Tillis thought his last day as speaker of the North Carolina House would be weeks ago, after which he would devote all his energies to running for the U.S. Senate. Instead, on Saturday morning, Tillis stood gavel in hand in the state House chamber, presiding over the passage of a budget that kept lawmakers at work well into the summer. Now, finally, he is finished — unless something else comes up to demand his time at the State Legislative Building.

Republicans have bemoaned the fact that their candidate was tied down in the state house, but in a conversation after the session adjourned, Tillis insisted it wasn't a problem. "It just means I've had two full-time jobs for an extra month," he said.

...

As a key race, North Carolina has of course attracted millions in spending by outside groups on both sides. Even though it seems to have a generic quality, some Republican strategists put the race in the top tier of those likely to give victory to the GOP. "We think Arkansas, Iowa, and North Carolina are in a little cluster that is just a little more likely to turn over than Louisiana, Alaska, and Colorado," said a GOP strategist keeping close tabs on the Senate race. Why? "Hagan has not been able to establish herself the way that Mary Landrieu and Mark Pryor and Mark Udall have been able to do," the strategist continued. "They're just stronger entities, even though Pryor is in a much more difficult state. Hagan is kind of nondescript. She doesn't make huge mistakes, but she doesn't really have a niche. She's one of these bland politicians who sticks to talking points and doesn't seem to cut through."

The problem for Republicans, the strategist continued, is that Tillis has a bit of the same problem. Yes, he is dragged down by his association with the legislature. And yes, some of the most conservative Republicans in the state view him as too moderate. But perhaps his biggest challenge is this, according to the strategist: "There's nothing special about him as a candidate. He's just kind of a nondescript state legislator. I would argue that this race is probably the two most bland, lacking-in-any-special-skill candidates of any top tier Senate race in the country. So I think it is a good measure of the two sides' ability to drive turnout and message."

Not too long ago, Hagan was a state legislator herself, until she challenged a weakened and disengaged Republican Sen. Elizabeth Dole in the perfect storm year of 2008. Hagan rode a Democratic wave and the incredible momentum of the Obama campaign right into the Senate, winning easily, with 52 percent of the vote to Dole's 44 percent. Now, however, Hagan faces a completely different political environment. North Carolina turned against Obama in 2012. The president's approval rating is low — 40 percent in the PPP poll, about what it is nationally — and Hagan's own approval, now 41 percent, seems tied to Obama's. There's no weakened and disengaged Republican to challenge; Tillis might be uninspiring, but he's a solid lawmaker, and he's ready for a tough campaign. Hagan is in trouble.

Complicating the race, and probably helping Hagan a little bit, is the presence of a libertarian candidate who, at least at the moment, is performing a bit better than such candidates usually do. With Hagan up 41-34 in the latest PPP survey, libertarian Sean Haugh is at eight percent. Some Republicans believe that as the race progresses — 16 percent are still undecided — Haugh's total will go down to an expected two percent or so. But other observers point to the recent Virginia governor's race, in which neither Democrat Terry McAuliffe or Republican Ken Cuccinelli was particularly well-liked by the voters. In that race, a libertarian candidate pulled six and a half percent.


...

The Tillis campaign calls its opponent "do nothing Kay Hagan" and labels her "one of North Carolina's most ineffective senators." Hagan has never sponsored a bill that became law, the Tillis campaign points out, adding with a little twist of the knife: "Over the last 40 years, Kay Hagan and John Edwards are the only two elected North Carolina senators who have failed to introduce a bill that was signed into law."

That argument is particularly satisfying for Republicans because Hagan won six years ago largely by portraying Dole as ineffective. Now, Hagan is getting a taste of her own medicine. But Hagan has bigger problems than her own lackluster record. The most serious is the one-two punch of President Obama's approval rating and Obamacare.

"Her numbers have tracked really closely with President Obama's in the state," said PPP's Jensen. In the company's latest poll, Obama's approval-disapproval rating in North Carolina was 41-53. Hagan's was 40-50. The numbers have been close to each other for quite a while, and certainly since Obamacare became a reality in many Americans' lives last fall. In a November 2013 PPP poll, Obama's approval-disapproval rating was 43-53, while Hagan's was 44-49. The president's ratings have been hurting Hagan for a long time.

And then there is Obamacare. "It's unpopular," said Jensen. "About 35 to 40 percent support it, about 50 to 55 percent oppose it … The more Obamacare has been in the spotlight, the more [Hagan] has struggled."

One particularly unhappy reality for Hagan is that she is one of those lawmakers who, during the debate over Obamacare, promised constituents that if they liked their health care plan, they would be able to keep it. "People who have insurance they're happy with can keep it," she told National Journal in June 2009.

 

[The Technomancer]

You're making an assumption that a vastly poorer society and its correspondingly poorer employers could afford to pay modern wages.

Well after child labor was outlawed its not like the entire economy came crashing down, so clearly it wasn't that crucial. And you're still dodging the question of how you think child labor would have ended. Unless you think its acceptable today

 

[benjipwns]

Child labor hasn't ended. It continues to this very day, and it's legal.

 

[xnipx]

I think the broader point he's trying to make is that child labor can only be stopped in those types of countries is with a increase in wages for adult labor. Until that happens, people over there will see it as a necessary evil that's needed for survival. As morally wrong as it may be until there's pressure for higher wages overall it will always exist.

 

[pigeon]

We already live in the world of entirely voluntary interaction, we already live in an anarchy, so why do we accept that certain groups get to commit violence when an individual cannot?

We don't accept it, we require it. Enforcing the dictate that individuals can't commit casual violence requires us to, as a society, imbue some people (whom we must hold to a higher standard) with the right to commit reasoned violence. We make this choice because the world where individuals could commit casual violence a) was much worse in terms of average outcomes, and b) evolved rapidly into a world where only some people had the right to commit casual violence. Our version is straightforwardly better.

It's wrong for me to steal your money, kidnap children and educate them at my own personal school. But why is it "okay" if a bunch of people with more guns do it? Why is it "okay" if they hold a vote beforehand and you lost?

Did you take advantage of the property these people held in common? What makes your theft acceptable and theirs not?

 

[benjipwns]

a world where only some people had the right to commit casual violence. Our version is straightforwardly better.

The former is our version.

 

[FreezeSSC]

BoA fraud.

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-08-06/bank-of-america-s-penalty-misses-the-point

Whats crazy is how politicians all rallied against fannie mae saying it was there fault for the housing crash when it really seems like it was *no surprise* the banks that all devised these ideas for fradulant mortage backed securities. And congress wants to give these banks even more power.

 

[alstein]

As for Hagan, the ACA - NC has the worst implementation of it in the country, due to intentional sabotaging by the Republicans in Raleigh.

I think Hagan loses by a squeaker IMO, and NC will continue on its path of becoming the Southern Wisconsin (Burr is dead man walking in 2016 though)

 

[The Technomancer]

Child labor hasn't ended. It continues to this very day, and it's legal.

You emphasize legal there like its a bad thing, but according to your philosophy there shouldn't even be a thing as "illegality". You know what those countries could do? Make child labor illegal. Would it screw up the economy and mess with the sacred idol of capitalism? Yes, it would. But only because it was built on the basis of exploitation. Society is not going to come crashing down because the price of consumer goods spike. The US somehow weathered the transition.

 

[benjipwns]

You emphasize legal there like its a bad thing, but according to your philosophy there shouldn't even be a thing as "illegality". You know what those countries could do? Make child labor illegal. Would it screw up the economy and mess with the sacred idol of capitalism? Yes, it would. But only because it was built on the basis of exploitation. Society is not going to come crashing down because the price of consumer goods spike. The US somehow weathered the transition.

I'm talking about the United States.

 

[The Technomancer]

I'm talking about the United States.

Where is it legal in the US? Outside of some farm situations where kids can work on their parents farms? And if you're talking about the dodges that are used to legally employ children on other farms yeah, I've got a pretty big problem with that and I'd fight to make it illegal also

At first I thought that your ideals about totally voluntary democracy just didn't include space for exploitation because you thought it couldn't happen or something. Now apparently its that you fully acknowledge that exploitation and non-violent coercion are possible, but its just not a problem because its worth it because "its what the majority wants"?

 

[benjipwns]

Where is it legal in the US? Outside of some farm situations where kids can work on their parents farms?

Everywhere? To call child labor illegal is to call driving illegal because there are all sorts of restrictions on it. Something close to a million kids work on farms because agricultural labor is exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plenty more could work jobs except for the ban on working during school hours.

Compulsory education has been the tool used to really reduce under age of majority labor.

At first I thought that your ideals about totally voluntary democracy just didn't include space for exploitation because you thought it couldn't happen or something. Now apparently its that you fully acknowledge that exploitation and non-violent coercion are possible, but its just not a problem because its worth it because "its what the majority wants"?

No, I'm saying nothing about whether it's "worth it", I'm questioning the claim that monopolies are democratic and hold the consent of the governed.

If "the people" want something coercion is unnecessary. If "the people" don't want something then it's not democratically decided, it's imposed by a minority.

If child labor is widely practiced, for good reasons or ill, then the assumption must be that the "general will" wishes it so. For the elites in the state to "outlaw" it is to reject democratic governance. If the justification is that the "people" don't know what's best, then why are the "people" then allowed to pick those who run the state? They're unfit to rule themselves either individually or collectively, yet they're fit to pick who should rule them collectively? If the justification is that there's a power disparity and aren't consenting and that if they had greater power they would change it, then it's to admit they're in no position to decide who should have power, especially when they choose not themselves, but another in the elite exploiter class.

Rule by "philosopher kings" isn't inherently wrong or right, but it's not democratic and doesn't automatically have the consent of the governed just because they're powerless to stop the kings. So why don't we stop pretending that it's otherwise?