-
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
Lindsay Graham is just the best.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
So not everywhere? Just on farms, not in factories, retail stores, fast food restaurants, etc? Because, like I've said, I'd also like to examine the current farming standards.
Okay lets take a step back and go more broad with this: why is your hyper-literal vision of voluntary democracy desirable? Assume that I do not believe that this reductionist version of freedom is intrinsically valuable for its own sake. You seem to have acknowledged that in this system its very possible that groups will still be exploited, majorities will engage in tyranny over minorities, power disparities will arise and aggregate. So its clearly not a utopia.
Please stop.
Clinton has learned nothing from 2008. You don't start moving to the right (Dems are in the center these days) until AFTER you win the nomination. Distancing herself from Obama...especially on Foreign Policy not only undermines him but it reeks of political expediency since she was the SoS while those decisions were being made. She is also inviting a challenger from the Left with her hawkish tendencies.
benjipwns
Banned
On the one hand we can denounce the violation of human rights, defend self-ownership and promote mutual benefit purely for moral and philosophical reasons or we can admit defeat and get to picking out who needs their rights violated the most while telling ourselves we're building something desirable because of the unseen.
The fact that in our state of anarchy people see it as a positive to exploit others and inflict massive suffering doesn't mean I have to grant my approval of it or join in. And if I can't convince you to refuse to philosophically approve of violating the rights of others that's not on you as I have no right to demand such a duty of you.
That doesn't preclude me from advising against course selection however.
The problem is, who?
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this paragraph. You're presenting it as a choice but I think you mean that the second is how things "actually are"?
But you are advocating for a state of greater anarchy that could (and I argue would) would feature greater exploitation and greater suffering. To advocate for such a thing seems implicitly like approval.
I argue that your position philosophically approves of the violation of rights of others, through what increasingly seems like willful ignorance of human behavior
benjipwns
Banned
It's a philosophical choice.
All I'm advocating for is an acknowledgement of the use of violence. Then I'm suggesting that people reject it and respect the rights of others instead of promoting greater violence.
I can't see how my position approves of the violation of rights in any manner.
PhoenixDark
Banned
I'd definitely say the last 4 months have really convinced me that she is beatable. Not just in the primary but in the general election. The aura of inevitability works best when you're good at pretending it doesn't exist; the unassuming "aw shucks" of Peyton Manning v the arrogance of Kobe Bryant, for instance. Maybe there's some sexism involved with people being turned off by a confident/arrogant woman but who knows.
I have no problem with criticizing Obama, that's to be expected - his second term has been a disaster since 2013 (I maintain that his presidency essentially ended with the Snowden leaks), and he's been dragging the party down ever since. I understand why people are jumping ship...but it's hard to jump ship by criticizing the very shit you were involved in (foreign policy). This isn't something like Obamacare, which Hillary has no connection to and thus could distance herself from. She was SoS...and traveled the entire world promoting the administration's foreign policy. She can't run from that. Yet she not only wants to try, she wants to run to Obama's right. It makes no fucking sense.
The American public agrees with Obama on most foreign policy issues, yet disapproves of his foreign policy. That's media and message based, and blurred by partisan lines. It's not surprising that Hillary's pollsters can't figure that out.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
No she's not. She's going for centrist dems who ARE more hawkish and she won't shed liberals as much as the complain
NYCmetsfan
Banned
Third term
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
You aren't just suggesting that people respect it, you're proposing changes to the actual operations of society, weather its short term privatization or long term decentralization. You don't seem to acknowledge violence and centralization are emergent phenomena, and I still don't have a clear understanding of why you think they aren't, other than a vague sense of "wouldn't it be nice if they weren't though?" Yes, it would be nice to abolish the police if people didn't commit violent or criminal behavior, but I'm not going to work backwards from that and somehow conclude that the way to end violent and criminal behavior is therefore ending the police.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
I'm torn. On the one hand, I'm not her biggest fan. On the other hand, a republican controlled government would be straight up regressive, no two ways about it
NYCmetsfan
Banned
I find this response illustrative.
There's a general wish for 'someone' to challenge Clinton. But no person is backed or presented
If this were a republican leaning forum their would be posts like "screw rand Paul, I hope Huckabee takes him out"
There's a general apathy and lack of promoting an alternative and then complaints when there isn't one. There won't be one if all that's expressed is anger followed by withdrawal. If you want liberal challenger find one and back it. That used to happen until Clinton won in 92.
When you're playing defense your goal is don't give up points. Liberals are playing defense right now and will be for the next few years. The best strategy is exactly what many liberal groups are doing is agitating. In 5 or 6 years those solutions won't be extreme (sick pay, drug legalization, immigration, warren type finanical reforms, etc) and will be much easier to pass.
benjipwns
Banned
My course of suggestions does include changes to operations of the government, yes. I suggest that rather than centralizing power it should relinquish its seizure and re-democratize the power among the people.
I'm not sure where you get any of these ideas. Especially when in a number of posts I have spoken about the incentives for centralized violence. (And the likely inevitability of.)
At no point have I said anything even remotely resembling the latter claim.
My suggestions simply rest on two axioms:
1. Monopolization is bad.
2. Coercive violence is bad.
Thus combining these two is bad and should probably be avoided even more so than each individually.
I'm well aware that this is an unpopular position locally, nationally, globally, historically, etc.
RustyNails
Member
Yeah. She is treating the election like it's her birthday. Someone needs to coakley her.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
And yet this whole discussion started because you were pushing for the privatization of education, and when we tried to bring up how privatization of education would not lead to uniform quality and access of education and thus wouldn't be a necessary improvement over the current situation and could in fact lead to greater exploitation your responses all seemed to be in the theme of
-no it wouldn't
-well maybe it would but if thats what the majority wants thats what the majority wants
I don't know about others but me personally I am hoping that once campaigning and the debates start that a worthy challenger will come and grab the democratic nomination from her and be good enough to beat republicans in the general election. I know I am pretty much describing an Obama part 2 kind of thing but hey I can be hopeful. I just really don't like her opinions or the way it feels that the nomination automatically belongs to her.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
'Cohersive violence' is the stupidest thing libertarians get hung up on. They extricate humans from the inherent violence of nature and human society and pretend its possible to end or that humans are different because "we reason". The reframing of government as violence isn't a serious criticism but strikes me as a kind of shock that's supposed to make people feel like their advocating something inherently immoral.
Its like the opposite of a euphemism. A heightened expression to shock.
Its like the opposite of a euphemism. A heightened expression to shock.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
I didn't mean it to tar you but that you express something that exists on the left I think to their detriment.
They've decided to play defense since Reagan and that leads to continued disappointment. The right knows how to play the game better.
benjipwns
Banned
No, my response was that a monopolized political system does not, has not and will not lead to uniform quality and access of education. So why maintain the failed monopoly instead of decentralizing and democratizing? Why not return the power to the parents, students, teachers and others interested in providing education? Especially when in every other case of greater choice, availability and access becoming available things have improved leaps and bounds.
It's not a re-framing, it's an accurate portrayal. What differentiates government from any other entity other than it claims a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence for coercive means? Walmart can try to claim a monopoly but it won't be considered legitimate. But call it the United States or Iran or North Korea or the Republican Party or the DEA and suddenly everyone acts like it's okay for one group to employ violence against innocents.
What's shocking is the fact that if you oppose using violence for personal gain it's like you've crossed some kind of unacceptable line and are actively harming progress by opposing the use of violence against innocents.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
benjipwns
Banned
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Because decentralization would not provide power to them, it would provide power to those wealthy enough to attract the best education. Look at the current private school market: despite the lower classes being underserved lots of private schools already find it more finically lucrative to compete among many other schools for the wealthier markets instead of pursuing the underserved low-income population. This is literally the entire core of my disagreement with you on almost any issue: decentralization does not necessarily increase democracy and liberty, it just wipes out the old centralized structures to make way for the new centralized structures. Only those new interests you're advocating for aren't even nominally acting in the public interest. When we allow every transaction to be defined by how much wealth one can extract from the other we inherently create an exploitative system
Oh I know what she's going for but that WILL invite a challenger from the left.
Also, I don't think it's wise to alienate the Obama folks. Yeah he is struggling right mostly now due to events outside his control and the predictable 2nd term pile-on by media and the opposition party. However, the fact that he's not below 40% despite 2 years of nothing but bad news and "scandal" is telling. Distancing herself from Obama makes him weaker as a surrogate (even if it's just to boost Dem turnout)
Good question. Dem bench is pretty weak right now
benjipwns
Banned
Which is why nobody but the rich can have any good or service ever.
Thankfully, in the current monopolized system there are no disparities in quality between wealthy areas and low income, high minority population areas.
Which is why the state is such a dangerous entity and vigilance is needed to stop its growth.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
I'm not claiming that. I'm claiming that your system would be worse, and honestly you're not even making an argument for why it wouldn't be at this point, you're just repeating "well its not like the current system is perfect!" over and over. Again, don't just tell me that the current system is bad, tell me why your system would be an improvement. And remember, I don't intrinsically value liberty. Its not better just because people are now more free by your narrow definition of freedom.
Private business entities define transactions in terms of wealth transfer. An institution of public education literally cannot, since it receives no direct payment from the student or their family. A public school cannot evaluate its students or their families in terms of profit for the institution itself
Brawndo Addict
Banned
Maybe I'm just missing something, but why is it that government is necessarily coercive? You seem to be presupposing that the populace would never, in an alternative blank slate world, voluntarily create a government to which they cede the use of force. Or that a smaller group of "asset-rich" individuals (I use this term very loosely) would not wield violence to establish themselves as the authority. Why can't people just prefer a corrupt government as opposed to a ruthless warlord? Is the formation and continued acceptance of government not a voluntary choice to which individuals should be entitled? That government can have problems of its own isn't a non-starter if the people prefer those problems to the alternative.
benjipwns
Banned
How am I supposed to make an argument that it would be worse or better? I'm not advocating for a centrally planned system but rather a democratized and dynamic open field that could turn into anything, maybe even another failed centralized disaster.
A shame. Slavery is never worth it.
It's all profit for the state.
Why do think I'm presupposing any of this?
This is the current system. I'm contending that it's morally wrong when a corporation doesn't allow you to opt out of its services. And doesn't ask permission in the first place before billing you.
Of course anyone can form whatever organizations they wish, but it's not voluntary if they impose it on others.
Ah, but when have monopolies ever sought to allow alternatives for comparison shopping?
benjipwns
Banned
Since people absolutely hate me posting in this thread, if you aren't interested in the books I replied with earlier, especially the bolded one, these articles from the author will do about as much good as me continuing to shit up the thread and make everyone endlessly miserable no matter how much I enjoy our discussions.
http://www.cato-unbound.org/2013/03/04/michael-huemer/problem-authority
http://spot.colorado.edu/~huemer/1.htm
http://www.cato-unbound.org/2013/03/04/michael-huemer/problem-authority
http://spot.colorado.edu/~huemer/1.htm
Honestly, both of those articles seem very very very disingenuous. I couldn't read past the dumbfuck analogies. There's just so much wrong with them that I don't even know where to start. If that's what passes for intelligent thought these days then we are in more trouble than I thought.
Avon Barksdale
Member
LOL.
LOL.
The Librarian
Banned
It's the CATO Institute, Dubsy.
Yea I know, but it's legitimately frightening to me that people not only take it seriously but act like those arguments have any basis in reality. How are we supposed to have rational political discourse when there's a group of people who don't even understand the social contract.
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
Yeah, those are pretty horrible.
For one, they lack much discussion of the consent of the governed.
The second one props up the strawman of fairness ("the poor have too little") when, despite the fact that politicians trot out fairness, the primary purpose behind keeping wealth from becoming too unequal is stability for everyone. Societies which have no brakes on the flow of wealth from the poor to the rich will invariable become horrible places and potentially lead to revolutions.
Brawndo Addict
Banned
Meh, when I don't find a thread's discussion interesting I just skip over the posts, it doesn't take away from other discussions that may be ongoing.
Well now you have more of a temporal issue, less so an issue of involuntariness. In this imaginary, blank slate world, it's entirely possible that the population would voluntarily form a government to which they cede such powers and authority. Now any future humans born would clearly not have consented to such a government, but that doesn't make the formation of the initial government illegitimate unless you presuppose that the granting of those rights is in of itself illegitimate despite consent (to which I would argue about negative/positive rights, etc).
Now I would agree that the futureborn cannot reasonably opt out because all land has been claimed by governments and there is no place to form this other society. But I see no reason to distinguish this situation from one in which private individuals have claimed all the land and a group of futureborn wish to form their own government elsewhere. This inevitably leads into the issue of private property and its enforcement/legitimacy, and I see no reason to suppose that a government's claim of land is any less legitimate than that of a private individual. If anything, I find the government's claim more compelling because it involves the consent of the population to both title, enforcement, sale, etc, and the use of force to resolve disputes.
How would we resolve property disputes in the absence of such a body? The very concept of private property necessitates the use of involuntary force in some capacity. Two farmers argue over who owns the acreage. They both go to competing justice corporations, each which contract with a private enforcement corporation. Both systems rule in favor of the farmer who came to them and send men to enforce their judgement. A third contractor rolls in with superior manpower and claims original ownership and the farmers and enforcers walk away. Such a world would inevitably devolve into those kinds of monopolized justice/defense systems which would use involuntary force on those who have not consented to their authority in the name of those who have.
Furthermore, I would take umbrage with the idea of capitalist choice being voluntary in of itself. If one is required to seek employment in order to feed their family, own shelter, or obtain the protection of their regional defense corporation, their choice is no more free or voluntary then that of the future-born living under a government their parents consented to. Or take it a step further, and suppose one disputes the very nature of private property and say that it is immoral and illegitimate, and that any efforts to enforce it are by their nature involuntary and violent. What right does one have to prevent someone from drinking from a river or eating from a tree? Does it flow from the mere fact they have created a philosophical system which says they are wrong for not believing in private property? What of the competing system which argues the opposite?
If one believes in the right to have something, it is not voluntary to force them to do something to obtain it. If one believes in the right to not do something, it is not voluntary to force them to do it. In the face of this paradox, government seems preferable to me than a multitude of dueling corporate-justice/defense-citystates.
Well now you have more of a temporal issue, less so an issue of involuntariness. In this imaginary, blank slate world, it's entirely possible that the population would voluntarily form a government to which they cede such powers and authority. Now any future humans born would clearly not have consented to such a government, but that doesn't make the formation of the initial government illegitimate unless you presuppose that the granting of those rights is in of itself illegitimate despite consent (to which I would argue about negative/positive rights, etc).
Now I would agree that the futureborn cannot reasonably opt out because all land has been claimed by governments and there is no place to form this other society. But I see no reason to distinguish this situation from one in which private individuals have claimed all the land and a group of futureborn wish to form their own government elsewhere. This inevitably leads into the issue of private property and its enforcement/legitimacy, and I see no reason to suppose that a government's claim of land is any less legitimate than that of a private individual. If anything, I find the government's claim more compelling because it involves the consent of the population to both title, enforcement, sale, etc, and the use of force to resolve disputes.
How would we resolve property disputes in the absence of such a body? The very concept of private property necessitates the use of involuntary force in some capacity. Two farmers argue over who owns the acreage. They both go to competing justice corporations, each which contract with a private enforcement corporation. Both systems rule in favor of the farmer who came to them and send men to enforce their judgement. A third contractor rolls in with superior manpower and claims original ownership and the farmers and enforcers walk away. Such a world would inevitably devolve into those kinds of monopolized justice/defense systems which would use involuntary force on those who have not consented to their authority in the name of those who have.
Furthermore, I would take umbrage with the idea of capitalist choice being voluntary in of itself. If one is required to seek employment in order to feed their family, own shelter, or obtain the protection of their regional defense corporation, their choice is no more free or voluntary then that of the future-born living under a government their parents consented to. Or take it a step further, and suppose one disputes the very nature of private property and say that it is immoral and illegitimate, and that any efforts to enforce it are by their nature involuntary and violent. What right does one have to prevent someone from drinking from a river or eating from a tree? Does it flow from the mere fact they have created a philosophical system which says they are wrong for not believing in private property? What of the competing system which argues the opposite?
If one believes in the right to have something, it is not voluntary to force them to do something to obtain it. If one believes in the right to not do something, it is not voluntary to force them to do it. In the face of this paradox, government seems preferable to me than a multitude of dueling corporate-justice/defense-citystates.
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
I find the basis of the immorality of government as the problem. I'm not sure what principle it's based on, but pragmatically speaking, the "opt out" idea and the idea that the market (aka power and money makes right) seem to lead to a worse result. The only actually examples we have of more limited government are pretty horrible places for most of the population.
I don't hate you posting, just stop fucking spamming up the thread. Jesus.
From the second link. After it lays out the definition of government from Political Science 101, that a government is an entity which has the exclusive authority to use violence within its borders (a definition I agree with), it goes on to advocate anarchy.
This is why arguing policy with benjipwns will get you nowhere.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
You speak of a social contract as though it's a real thing, rather than a theoretical construct meant to justify the status quo (or whatever you want it to justify, really).
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
It's an implicit, de facto thing.
It's a descriptive term that people use to describe the current situation.
It's not a perfect term, but the fact that people vote to form the government is not at all recognized in those two essays, and one makes a rather specious case against even discussing it.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
It's frightening until you remember they are the fringe of the fringe of the fringe. As much as we may disagree with the conservative half of our country, nearly everyone understands how crappy of a political philosophy this is that says that the violent coercion of the government institution is a bigger problem than the violent coercion of an individual that doesn't have the money to pay for a "protection agency", or the power to protect himself.
It's almost like they're imagining a world 100% removed from practicality and philosophizing from there, while still thinking they can apply those philosophies to the real world.
Maybe you can look at taxation as simply the government stealing money from you at gunpoint, and that makes all government spending paid for by a form of blood money, and that's not exactly great. But you still have to look at the alternative. Violence will always exist, government or not, and I'd much rather have that violence come in the form of taxation that pays for a police as decided by the voting majority, rather than the violence of slavery, rape, and death that comes from a group of individuals with power.
Seriously, what's to stop one protection agency from just murdering another weaker protection agency and taking the resources of all the individuals that were under that protection agency? You may think that monopolies don't exist in a free market economy, but in the market of violence where the matter of choice isn't a factor, a monopoly of violence occurs pretty damn easily. That much is obvious because it's freaking all throughout human history, and basically how governments were brought about in the first place. But now that we've done so much to get the violent monopoly to work for the people instead of for the government, they basically want to reset the whole process, hoping that this time maybe there wouldn't be the violent power struggles that lead to the creation of the monopoly of violence known as the government in the first place.
Like I was saying, thinking that an absolutely free economy of bartering can fix all our problems is one thing. But thinking that a free market of violence is better than the monopoly of violence we have now, is just absolutely insane.
How about instead of spending all of your energy thinking about a violent monopoly that will always exist in one form or another, we just accept that violence will always exist and strive to make the violent monopoly to work for us as much as possible?
This kind of selective quoting and response is disingenuous at best. If you don't like the reception you are getting, don't do garbage like this.
Of only there was a position she could've held that would've proven her policy....
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked