Support NeoGAF

[Jooney]

As a racial minority living in a majority-white country I'm sure as shit glad that my basic civil rights are protected by federal law and not left to the states. I get the feeling civil rights legislation via federalism only appeals to those who value the freedom to discriminate over the the right to live a life free from base discrimination.

South Carolina, Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama, Floirda, and Georgia were all 40-60% black during the Jim Crow era. The Black Belt had plenty of cities and other forms of local government that existed in 60+% black populations and to an extent this continues. The Great Migration ended the state level distribution, but the federal government couldn't wait for census data to catch up with elite political pressure, which is why the Voting Rights Act applies the way it did rather than equally blocking racial discrimination

Yet it still took 90 years before federal legislation had to overturn jim crow bullshit. Not to mention that even if local black majorities enacted civil rights protections for themselves, it wouldn't have helped a black man living anywhere else.

 

[speculawyer]

Holding the Aral Sea in the commons sure worked out well.

Good luck finding someone that will say communism is the way to protect the environment. You've seen those pictures out of China haven't you? And cold war Russia was even worse.

In fact one of the most famous environmental problems is named after that aspect . . . "The tragedy of the commons".

 

[benjipwns]

Yet it still took 90 years before federal legislation had to overturn jim crow bullshit. Not to mention that even if local black majorities enacted civil rights protections for themselves, it wouldn't have helped a black man living anywhere else.

Okay, here's what I don't understand. The federal government destroys the lives of indigenous Americans for centuries. It supports slavery, it enacts laws to return slaves to their "owners" and prosecutes states/localities/individuals who attempt nullification, it takes a few tiny steps in the direction of civil rights for blacks but then repeals them and props up Jim Crow for another 50 years. It imprisons people for their ethnic makeup. It backs the crimes of urban renewal. All while ignoring the plain text of federal law.

And we're supposed to praise them as if they weren't enablers? As if they weren't supporting it? And aren't still carrying out destruction with things like the War on Drugs?

Note: I'm not and haven't ever been a Catholic.

In fact one of the most famous environmental problems is named after that aspect . . . "The tragedy of the commons".

Uh, yeah, which is why I pointed out an example of it.

 

[pigeon]

I don't understand why we don't just tie welfare recipients to a network that tracks how many jobs they apply for a month and whether or not they were offered a said job or if they were currently going to school. That way there would be no need for welfare time limits.

What would be the benefit of this? How does it improve the effectiveness of welfare in protecting the poor?

 

[Jooney]

Okay, here's what I don't understand. The federal government destroys the lives of indigenous Americans for centuries. It supports slavery, it enacts laws to return slaves to their "owners" and prosecutes states/localities/individuals who attempt nullification, it takes a few tiny steps in the direction of civil rights for blacks but then repeals them and props up Jim Crow for another 50 years. It imprisons people for their ethnic makeup. All while ignoring the plain text of the law.

You're right. It's almost as if the federal government of 1965 was different to that of 1860. And that the moral zeitgeist has changed. You're acting as if our understanding of civil rights and how it applies to different sets of people haven't changed over the course of decades.

 

[benjipwns]

You're right. It's almost as if the federal government of 1965 was different to that of 1860. And that the moral zeitgeist has changed. You're acting as if our understanding of civil rights and how it applies to different sets of people haven't changed over the course of decades.

How am I doing that?

I was merely pointing out that the federal government has just as bad of record as the States (arguably worse) and continues to violate civil rights en masse. So holding it up as some kind of paragon of virtue or even anti-racism is odd.

 

[speculawyer]

Uh, yeah, which is why I pointed out an example of it.

Well your post and post history indicates more of the fact that you were mocking communism (as a sort of opposite of Libertarnianism) as an even worse way of dealing with environmental issues. Both systems are complete failures in this regard.

The Libertarian view is to use the courts or to have things owned privately so they'll be protected. And if that worked then why isn't it working? . . . Oh yeah . . .

It is completely impractical as it just collapses due to greed & corruption.

People can't really privately own the atmosphere, ocean, rivers, aquifers, etc. And private enterprises that profit off externalities are amazingly successful at preventing rules, laws, schemes, etc. from preventing them and protecting the environment.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

How am I doing that?

I was merely pointing out that the federal government has just as bad of record as the States (arguably worse) and continues to violate civil rights en masse. So holding it up as some kind of paragon of virtue or even anti-racism is odd.

The federal government has change and does change far more readily than local mores.

The fact that you can change find examples of the federal government doing bad things doesnt change that.

My question is which authority has helped black people and other minority groups more? The federal or local?

 

[benjipwns]

And private enterprises that profit off externalities are amazingly successful at preventing rules, laws, schemes, etc. from preventing them and protecting the environment.

So is PEMEX.

Both systems are complete failures in this regard.
...
And if that worked then why isn't it working?

Okay, so then we'll work with your argument that private ownership and common ownership are both failures rather than contending that one or the other isn't. The answer is...common ownership?

I don't see how this follows.

The federal government has change and does change far more readily than local mores.

Since when? A lot more localities have enacted and protected civil and voting rights for property owners, non-property owners, blacks, women, etc. before the feds ever got around to switching their positions.

My question is which authority has helped black people and other minority groups more? The federal or local?

This assumes they've helped. I'd say they've run up the score too far in the other direction to start claiming they actually have helped anyone yet.

Considering that one is supposed to be watching the others, I say they get double the negative points too.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

So is PEMEX.


Okay, so then we'll work with your argument that private ownership and common ownership are both failures rather than contending that one or the other isn't. The answer is...common ownership?

I don't see how this follows.

Your entire shtick is to provide one off counter examples or snarky comments about of failures of something somewhat similar to somehow come to the conclusion "screw trying"

I don't understand why we don't just tie welfare recipients to a network that tracks how many jobs they apply for a month and whether or not they were offered a said job or if they were currently going to school. That way there would be no need for welfare time limits.

As pigeon said, why? Who does that benefit?

All it is is a reflection of a widespread public opprobrium against welfare

As a racial minority living in a majority-white country I'm sure as shit glad that my basic civil rights are protected by federal law and not left to the states. I get the feeling civil rights legislation via federalism only appeals to those who value the freedom to discriminate over the the right to live a life free from base discrimination.

But benji can use logic to say why you're wrong to feel that way because the federal government is bad or something.

Is it any wonder why libertarians never get any progress with minorities?
This kind of "you're stupid for thinking that way, don't you see they're really your enemy" attitude that comes across. (Not saying benji is doing that per se)

 

[benjipwns]

Your entire shtick is to provide one off counter examples or snarky comments about of failures of something somewhat similar to somehow come to the conclusion "screw trying"

Wait, wait, wait, you think PEMEX and the Aral Sea are "one off" examples of the tragedy of the commons and not just FUCKING OBVIOUS ones that have gone on for ages causing untold damages?

And where do you get the idea that my conclusion is "screw trying" when it's pretty obvious that it's "stop doing the same thing and expecting different results"?

 

[speculawyer]

Okay, so then we'll work with your argument that private ownership and common ownership are both failures rather than contending that one or the other isn't. The answer is...common ownership?

I don't see how this follows.

The point is that there are no simple answers. No magic panacea. No miracle ideology wherein everything just works out great by itself.

Good things often take careful study, scientific analysis, and hard fought policy formalized as laws & regulations.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Wait, wait, wait, you think PEMEX and the Aral Sea are "one off" examples of the tragedy of the commons and not just FUCKING OBVIOUS ones that have gone on for ages causing untold damages?

And where do you get the idea that my conclusion is "screw trying" when it's pretty obvious that it's "stop doing the same thing and expecting different results"?

No, but you present them as proof that public solutions inherently fail. Instead of as specific projects that failed.

 

[thepotatoman]

Wouldn't a true states rights movement mean removing first and second amendment restrictions on state governments as well? I don't see a reason why we would be against federal protections for civil rights but for federal protections for free speech. Both are restricting the state's ability to make its own choices.

 

[benjipwns]

The point is that there are no simple answers. No magic panacea. No miracle ideology wherein everything just works out great by itself.

Good things often take careful study, scientific analysis, and hard fought policy formalized as laws & regulations.

Except you're rejecting that in favor of common ownership. Only under private ownership does anyone have interest to protect their property counter to the wishes of non-owners.

If the Republicans gain super majorities in Congress and President Palin signs a bill to burn down all the national forests, dig them up until oil is hit and if not then dump garbage in the holes. That's common ownership, there's no other "owners" to object and try and protect their property.

Unless of course, the bureaucratic apparatus of the state should ignore democratically elected leaders and the will of the people to act as owners of the national forests.

No, but you present them as proof that public solutions inherently fail. Instead of as specific projects that failed.

They failed in a much more damaging way comparative to their era by the deliberate actions of one owner than liberal private ownership ever has.

And more importantly. That "owner" has never paid for the damages and never will. Let alone make any others whole.

But benji can use logic to say why you're wrong to feel that way because the federal government is bad or something.

Is it any wonder why libertarians never get any progress with minorities?
This kind of "you're stupid for thinking that way, don't you see they're really your enemy" attitude that comes across. (Not saying benji is doing that per se)

I don't say it's wrong to feel any way or that anyone is stupid. And it hardly has anything to do with minorities, 99% of whites also believe that the violation of their rights is to their benefit. Whites just get the bonus of being able to also violate the rights of minorities an extra amount.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/08/gop-poll-of-women-party-stuck-in-past-110398.html

A detailed report commissioned by two major Republican groups — including one backed by Karl Rove — paints a dismal picture for Republicans, concluding women voters view the party as “intolerant,” “lacking in compassion” and “stuck in the past.”

Women are “barely receptive” to Republicans’ policies and the party does “especially poorly” with women in the Northeast and Midwest, according to an internal Crossroads GPS and American Action Network report obtained by POLITICO. It was presented to a small number of senior aides this month on Capitol Hill, according to multiple sources involved.

Republicans swore they’d turn around the party’s performance with women after Mitt Romney’s loss in 2012. And while they are in good shape in 2014, poised to pick up seats in the House and possibly take the majority in the Senate, the new report shows that they have not improved their standing with women — which could exacerbate their problems if Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee in 2016.

Paul Lindsey, the spokesman for Crossroads GPS, said, “There are a number of House policymakers and staff who have been willing to focus on issues important to women, and we think it’s important that they are aware of the policy solutions that are available to help address these concerns.”

The solutions offered include neutralizing Democratic attacks that the GOP doesn’t support “fairness” for women; “deal honestly with any disagreement on abortion, then move to other issues;” and “pursue policy innovations that inspire women voters to give the GOP a ‘fresh look.’”

lol

The report is blunt about the party’s problems. It says 49 percent of women find Republicans unfavorable, while just 39 percent of women hold Democrat in bad favor. It also found that Republicans “fail to speak to women in the different circumstances in which they live” – as breadwinners, for example. “This lack of understanding and acknowledgment closes many minds to Republican policy solutions,” the report says. The groups urge Republicans to embracing policies that “are not easily framed as driven by a desire to aid employers or ‘the rich.’”

I love how its not embrace polices that benefit the middle class, its don't pick polices that can be "framed" correctly. Pretty much saying hide your real motives better.

Two policies former House Majority Leader Eric Cantor promoted as a way to make inroads with middle-class women and families – charter schools and flexible work schedules – were actually the least popular policies among female voters.

condescension doesn't work!?!?

When asked who “wants to make health care more affordable,” Democrats have a 39-percent advantage, and a 40-percent advantage on who “looks out for the interests of women.” Democrats have a 39-percent advantage when it comes to who “is tolerant of other people’s lifestyles.”

LOL

Andrea Bozek, a spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee, said the party’s candidates “across the country are speaking directly to women voters both on the campaign trail and in their television ads.”

Wouldn't a true states rights movement mean removing first and second amendment restrictions on state governments as well? I don't see a reason why we would be against federal protections for civil rights but for federal protections for free speech. Both are restricting the state's ability to make its own choices.

You know the answer to this

 

[The Technomancer]

Wait, wait, wait, you think PEMEX and the Aral Sea are "one off" examples of the tragedy of the commons and not just FUCKING OBVIOUS ones that have gone on for ages causing untold damages?

And where do you get the idea that my conclusion is "screw trying" when it's pretty obvious that it's "stop doing the same thing and expecting different results"?

your position is only "stop doing the same thing" if you take a very narrow view of history. If you look back any further than, I dunno, the founding of the US you see that history is filled with examples of institutional power and abuse far more egregious than anything the US currently engages in, and you've never been able to answer how we would avoid the re-emergence of those worse systems under a reduction in public power. History is replete with what is essentially private individuals amassing wealth and using it to control the force required to subjugate a larger population. The only reason a king is a king is because he controls the army. When we say that this is a concern we have with the depowering of the government, we're not talking about hypotheticals

 

[benjipwns]

If you look back any further than, I dunno, the founding of the US you see that history is filled with examples of institutional power and abuse far more egregious than anything the US currently engages in

APK asked about US history, so I talked about US history.

you've never been able to answer how we would avoid the re-emergence of those worse systems under a reduction in centralization.

I don't see why I'm supposed to create an involuntary central plan to prevent the inevitable results of central plans. Especially when I've already told everyone specifically multiple times that people will continue to use violence against others for personal gain until they're convinced that violence against others for personal gain is morally wrong. (Not to mention that I'm against involuntary central planning on the results outside of the moral results.)

All I can do is tell you "I told you so", when a global or intergalactic central state does what all centralization of power always does. Abuse those under it's purview.

History is replete with what is essentially private individuals amassing wealth and using it to control the force required to subjugate a larger population. The only reason a king is a king is because he controls the army. When we say that this is a concern we have with the depowering of the government, we're not talking about hypotheticals

Yes, this is the current system under the corporations we call the nation-state. I just don't see why one would want to actively establish it, support it and enrich its power.

 

[The Technomancer]

I don't see why I'm supposed to create an involuntary central plan to prevent the inevitable results of central plans. Especially when I've already told everyone specifically multiple times that people will continue to use violence against others for personal gain until they're convinced that violence against others for personal gain is morally wrong. (Not to mention that I'm against involuntary central planning on the results outside of the moral results.)

All I can do is tell you "I told you so", when a global or intergalactic central state does what all centralization of power always does. Abuse those under it's purview.

Because your criticism is predicated on specifically advocating for a direction of change that you would like to see us pursue. That's why you have to argue that your direction of change would be an actual improvement. Your current arguments all basically boil down to "well can it really be worse than this?" and history shows that yeah, yeah it can

 

[NYCmetsfan]

All I can do is tell you "I told you so",

we know

 

[thepotatoman]

You know the answer to this

I'm sure the answer is no, but I would like to know what the justification is. I would expect some sort of legal technicalities about how the civil rights act wasn't in the constitution, but maybe then you could at least nail down their position to being pro-federal civil rights protections done slightly differently and pro-14th amendment.

Though if I'm off base on that assumption I'd like to know.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Snyder down 2 in a EPIC-MRA poll of Michigan

Not a good day for PD-endorsed candidates

 

[NYCmetsfan]

I'm sure the answer is no, but I would like to know what the justification is. I would expect some sort of legal technicalities about how the civil rights act wasn't in the constitution, but maybe then you could at least nail down their position to being pro-federal civil rights protections done slightly differently and pro-14th amendment.

Though if I'm off base on that assumption I'd like to know.

Its a backwards justification. People have their polices they support and find justifications rather than have an ideology and then form polices.

 

[Hobbestetrician]

Snyder down 2 in a EPIC-MRA poll of Michigan

Not a good day for PD-endorsed candidates

Haha, the head of the polling firm is named Bernie Porn.

 

[benjipwns]

Because your criticism is predicated on specifically advocating for a direction of change that you would like to see us pursue. That's why you have to argue that your direction of change would be an actual improvement. Your current arguments all basically boil down to "well can it really be worse than this?" and history shows that yeah, yeah it can

No, my argument boils down to "coercive violence against others, especially for personal gain, is wrong" which seems to be rejected by most here.

My backup argument is that "people acting democratically and collectively to decide their actions is better than people being forced by thugs to do what the thugs say" which admittingly is on shakier ground requiring data. I think any cursory glance of history would suggest that the liberal revolution out of the Enlightenment that "introduced" the absoluteness of self-ownership is better than the thought before it and the reactionary thought (socialism, communism, progressivism, fascism, "social democracy") that has come after it rejecting self-ownership and empowering the thugs some kind of spirit authority.

I understand these are not popular here, or anywhere except a few select forums, but I like debating and discussing philosophy over circle jerks (they're so formal and centrally planned compared to say an orgy) however, if at any time people would like me to stop advocating against violence and the suppression of democracy they should just let me know instead of bothering the mods with PMs. As I would rather be cooperative than to coerce others into facing my objective and pure righteousness.

I'm sure the answer is no, but I would like to know what the justification is. I would expect some sort of legal technicalities about how the civil rights act wasn't in the constitution, but maybe then you could at least nail down their position to being pro-federal civil rights protections done slightly differently and pro-14th amendment.

Though if I'm off base on that assumption I'd like to know.

The 14th Amendment makes explicit what the 9th, 10th and promise of a Republican Form of Government clause apparently don't. (And Article IV, section 2 arguably.)

Haha, the head of the polling firm is named Bernie Porn.

You should see him in person.

 

[benjipwns]

Actually, there are a good number of people who suggest that because the states had their own official religions at the time, the First still can't be applied against the states through the 14th. (Also because it says "Congress". The second and the rest don't which I guess would bind them to the states through the 10th.)

 

[The Technomancer]

No, my argument boils down to "coercive violence against others, especially for personal gain, is wrong" which seems to be rejected by most here.

Its not "rejected" by most here, so much as its recognized as an inevitable emergent phenomenon of large scale human interaction that therefore must be controlled because it cannot be eliminated.

I understand these are not popular here, or anywhere except a few select forums, but I like debating and discussing philosophy over circle jerks (they're so formal and centrally planned compared to say an orgy) however, if at any time people would like me to stop advocating against violence and the suppression of democracy they should just let me know instead of bothering the mods with PMs. As I would rather be cooperative than to coerce others into facing my objective and pure righteousness.

The problem is that your "advocacy against violence and coercion" is advocacy for changes that you have not adequately justified as actually reducing violence and coercion, other than at a surface level. This is the problem I and most others have with the various things that you propose (even if the proposal is as simple as "we should end this"): just because something reduces the most salient and immediate amounts of violence and coercion doesn't mean it has the same effect in the long term. In fact, as we try to explain, we believe that most of the things you propose run a high risk of actually increasing the things they would supposedly decrease.

 

[PhoenixDark]

GOP attempts to woo women often remind me of the awkward stuff local churches would do to get kids excited about Jesus. "Hey you like music, well check out this...Christian soft rock band as they sing about Jesus!" Nah...

They don't seem to understand that the best way to appeal to anyone - women, black people, Hispanics, etc - is to treat them like people. That's it.

 

[benjipwns]

Its not "rejected" by most here, so much as its recognized as an inevitable emergent phenomenon of large scale human interaction that therefore must be controlled because it cannot be eliminated.

No, I'd argue it's rejected. The idea of it being "controlled" is "it should be placed in my hands and those like me" not that it should be diminished or that it's quite frankly, morally wrong.

And you continue to ignore that I've "recognized it" and openly so here.

We currently have four large private corporations who carry out most of the violence/explotation/etc. especially regarding the environment (the original origin of this discussion with speculawyer) in the US, EU, China and India for the personal gain of the elites of those either directly employed by or within allied corporations. There is no common ownership yet enacted fully, and I would imagine that most of PoliGAF would oppose the actual elimination of competing private firms, such as the United States, as they argue regularly to do more locally or what they would view as involuntary takeover not part of the terms of the social contract if, say ISIL were to become their current "government" provider tomorrow.

They just don't grant any of this validity to those who would like to decrease the power of the corporation that claims ownership over them since they want that corporation to continue claiming to own others. It's System Wars writ large.

In fact, as we try to explain, we believe that most of the things you propose run a high risk of actually increasing the things they would supposedly decrease.

Yes, this is often asserted, along with handwaves of the countless examples of history showing the danger of eliminating rights, democracy and liberalism in favor of centralizing institutions of power in the control of an elite few through the force of those already in power.

just because something reduces the most salient and immediate amounts of violence and coercion doesn't mean it has the same effect in the long term.

Violence begets violence. That's the long term of violence.

"But in the long run, we're all dead..."

 

[Jooney]

How am I doing that?

I was merely pointing out that the federal government has just as bad of record as the States (arguably worse) and continues to violate civil rights en masse. So holding it up as some kind of paragon of virtue or even anti-racism is odd.

I never said that the federal government if a paragon of virtue, or even anti-racist. If you believe myself or others here hold that view then that is something that you have created out of whole cloth.

It's possible to hold positions: that the federal government has been a protector of civil rights and that it has done (and is still doing) awful things for minorities in this country. The objective would be to work to fix the latter; not throw the whole apparatus out.

Your view doesn't make sense to me. The war on drugs is bad; therefore, it stands to reason that women in California should have access to reproductive health services but not women in Alabama?

 

[The Technomancer]

Yes, this is often asserted, along with handwaves of the countless examples of history showing the danger of eliminating rights, democracy and liberalism in favor of centralizing institutions of power in the control of an elite few through the force of those already in power.


Violence begets violence. That's the long term of violence.

"But in the long run, we're all dead..."

No, showing how history is rife with individuals using their "rights" and "pure democracy" to accumulate power and create exploitative systems that thus result in systems that are even more lacking in freedom. Pure democracy is the natural state of human existence until a single person acquires more resources than another. As soon as that happens, stratification begins, and as soon as one person trades their willingness to cause violence for some of those resources then coercion begins. The kind of "free, democratic" world that you describe is inherently unstable. That instability is, again, the problem most of us have with the proposals to "increase democracy and liberalism": we believe that the actions would ultimately have a net negative effect on liberty and quality of life compared to the current system.

 

[benjipwns]

I never said that the federal government if a paragon of virtue, or even anti-racist. If you believe myself or others here hold that view then that is something that you have created out of whole cloth.

Not you, but some were suggesting that they were simply because the States may have been worse. You rather accurately pointed out the change of the moral zeitgeist. Which runs counter to the standard intelligent design view.

It's possible to hold positions: that the federal government has been a protector of civil rights and that it has done (and is still doing) awful things for minorities in this country. The objective would be to work to fix the latter; not throw the whole apparatus out.

Yes, it's true, if I save you from a vicious tabby cat and then stabbed you ten thousand times that I have both protected and harmed you. But at some point you shouldn't trust me when I say I've changed baby, things will be different this time.

Your view doesn't make sense to me. The war on drugs is bad; therefore, it stands to reason that women in California should have access to reproductive health services but not women in Alabama?

I don't support the criminalization of victimless actions by the State of Alabama if that's what you're suggesting.

No, showing how history is rife with individuals using their "rights" and "pure democracy" to accumulate power and create exploitative systems that thus result in systems that are even more lacking in freedom. Pure democracy is the natural state of human existence until a single person acquires more resources than another. As soon as that happens, stratification begins, and as soon as one person trades their willingness to cause violence for some of those resources then coercion begins. The kind of "free, democratic" world that you describe is inherently unstable.

And I've said as much, but I see this as no reason to actually advocate for elites to acquire greater and greater centralized power. And make justifications for their seizure of power.

That instability is, again, the problem most of us have with the proposals to "increase democracy and liberalism": we believe that the actions would ultimately have a net negative effect on liberty and quality of life compared to the current system.

So you would morally throw away liberty, democracy and the all the benefits of voluntary human cooperation because a corporation might try to claim it owns you? Even though a corporation already does. I don't know why anyone would make this moral decision. Not to mention suggesting "quality of life" for everyone is better under centralized elite control than the system that more closely resembles everywhere we've made progress in the quality of life and where everyone has a say.

 

[Lucky Forward]

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/08/gop-poll-of-women-party-stuck-in-past-110398.html

But Republicans really do care about women's issues...

Gov. Corbett: Reform Liquor Laws So It's Easier For Women To Make Dinner

Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett (R) thinks his state should reform its liquor laws. That way, he argued, women would have an easier job making dinner.

"I think a lot of people want to be able to walk into a grocery store," Corbett said. "Particularly, a lot of the women, want to be able to go in and buy a bottle of wine for dinner, go down buy a six pack or two six packs, buy dinner, and go home. Rather than what I just described, is at least three stops, in Pennsylvania."

 

[Jooney]

Not you, but some were suggesting that they were simply because the States may have been worse. You rather accurately pointed out the change of the moral zeitgeist. Which runs counter to the standard intelligent design view.

When section V of the VRA was struck down last year, what did the states that were given more power do? Within 48 hours of the ruling states like Texas and North Carolina enacted the most restrictive "voter integrity" laws (read: restrict the minority vote) in the country. How did this transfer of power to the states benefit the black citizens of those states? The answer is it didn't, but that's ok because federal government slavery something something.

I don't support the criminalization of victimless actions by the State of Alabama if that's what you're suggesting.

You may not, but there's likely a majority that does. Sux to be a woman in Alabama then I guess amirite *shrug*

 

[theprodigy]

See European leftists turn into tea party navitist

http://m.neogaf.com/showthread.php?t=883178

I find it amusing how European posters here seem more likely to defend these types of policies, at least when implemented there and not in America.

edit: someone quote every single blatantly racist post in there, there's a whole lot of them

 

[The Technomancer]

And I've said as much, but I see this as no reason to actually advocate for elites to acquire greater and greater centralized power. And make justifications for their seizure of power.

But you are advocating for elites to acquire greater and greater power. Elite concentration of power is a natural product of the things you advocate. Its a natural product of just about everything, which is why most of us examine it and say "but how can we make the existence of power disparity cause the least overall harm?" instead of thinking we can eliminate it.

So you would morally throw away liberty, democracy and the all the benefits of voluntary human cooperation because a corporation might try to claim it owns you? Even though a corporation already does. I don't know why anyone would make this moral decision. Not to mention suggesting "quality of life" for everyone is better under centralized elite control than the system that more closely resembles everywhere we've made progress in the quality of life and where everyone has a say.

No, I would recognize that in their pure forms they're degenerate. Not might try to claim it owns me. Will inevitably exert coercive force on me. I will recognize that attaining such liberty and democracy is impossible, and thus try to create a system that maximizes liberty and democracy while minimizing the ability to be exploitative. Which is, again, a metric by which the US government compares very favorably to past systems.

 

[benjipwns]

When section V of the VRA was struck down last year, what did the states that were given more power do? Within 48 hours of the ruling states like Texas and North Carolina enacted the most restrictive "voter integrity" laws (read: restrict the minority vote) in the country. How did this transfer of power to the states benefit the black citizens of those states? The answer is it didn't, but that's ok because federal government slavery something something.

My complaint about the VRA was that it didn't apply universally, but to select states based on outdated data. If racial discrimination is wrong it is wrong across the board not only in states with a past history.

You may not, but there's likely a majority that does. Sux to be a woman in Alabama then I guess amirite *shrug*

If the alternative is that neither women in California and Alabama can get birth control, I would prefer that the women of California be able to get it.

I'm not a Marxist anymore so I no longer think of history as marching in one progressive direction.

But you are advocating for elites to acquire greater and greater power. Elite concentration of power is a natural product of the things you advocate. Its a natural product of just about everything, which is why most of us examine it and say "but how can we make the existence of power disparity cause the least overall harm?" instead of thinking we can eliminate it.

But your premise assumes that elites will wield power for a greater unselfish good, so it's best to centralize it before others, elite or not can possibly wield power. I don't consider this realistic and are baffled at advocating anything based on the idea rather than taking advantage of the nature of man under as broad of distribution of power as possible.

No, I would recognize that in their pure forms they're degenerate.

Liberty is not degenerate in any form.

Which is, again, a metric by which the US government compares very favorably to past systems.

But you reject the very reasons, competitive distribution of power, it compares so favorably, do you not?

 

[The Technomancer]

EDIT: Nvm. I don't know what to say to someone who literally believes that large power structures are incapable of doing anything more positively than smaller structures

 

[Jooney]

But...the great thing is there's an option where the women in both California and Alabama get it

But that would impinge on the local peoples rights there to discriminate, which is the worst of all possible worlds.

 

[benjipwns]

EDIT: Nvm. I don't know what to say to someone who literally believes that large power structures are incapable of doing anything more positively than smaller structures

But that would impinge on the local peoples rights there to discriminate, which is the worst of all possible worlds.

Again, you're both assuming that only *good* people will be operating in that larger power structure. And completely dismissing the more likely possibility that *worse* people will be.

 

[Jooney]

My complaint about the VRA was that it didn't apply universally, but to select states based on outdated data. If racial discrimination is wrong it is wrong across the board not only in states with a past history.

Which goes to the heart of exactly what I said in my first post. Your sympathies appear to lie with people who have had their right to discriminate rather than with people who want to live a life free from base discrimination.

Also, the data may have been outdated, but the conclusion that that data reached clearly wasn't. The states were given more power and they abused it.

 

[The Technomancer]

Liberty is not degenerate in any form.

This is the core of it, right here. Yes, it is. If we both possess equal liberty but you possess more resources than I do, than you have the ability to trade those resources for another person's willingness to commit violence, and now you have the ability to coerce me. Even if everyone possesses completely equal resources (which is not a position that will be arrived at without force in the first place) there is nothing preventing one subgroup from banding together to leverage their combined strength to exploit another subgroup. There is no position of equal liberty from which people cannot develop coercive or exploitative systems, and as history has shown we cannot depend on human decency for them to not develop such systems

But you reject the very reasons, competitive distribution of power, it compares so favorably, do you not?

No, I reject the idea that eliminating the current structure of distributed power will somehow distribute the power more, instead of causing it to concentrate in an even smaller, even more selfish group of elites.

 

[benjipwns]

Which goes to the heart of exactly what I said in my first post. Your sympathies appear to lie with people who have had their right to discriminate rather than with people who want to live a life free from base discrimination.

Also, the data may have been outdated, but the conclusion that that data reached clearly wasn't. The states were given more power and they abused it.

This makes no sense. I didn't consider the violations prior to the VRA to be legal, but if we're going that route to enact new terms I find that only enacting stringent terms on certain states to be silly. They should have been enacted on all states. Just because Idaho doesn't have a past of racial discrimination doesn't mean it shouldn't have to meet the same standards as North Carolina because it may have a future of racial discrimination.

This is the core of it, right here. Yes, it is. If we both possess equal liberty but you possess more resources than I do, than you have the ability to trade those resources for another person's willingness to commit violence, and now you have the ability to coerce me.

Which is me violating your liberty, which is morally wrong. Liberty remains morally good, not becomes degenerate because I ignored yours to violate it.

as history has shown we cannot depend on human decency for them to not develop such systems

So then why are you encouraging them to develop such systems and cast off any human decency?

No, I reject the idea that eliminating the current structure of distributed power will somehow distribute the power more, instead of causing it to concentrate in an even smaller, even more selfish group of elites.

So the only thing protecting us from a small group of elites wielding power in evil ways is a small group of elites wielding power in evil ways?

 

[The Technomancer]

Which is me violating your liberty, which is morally wrong. Liberty remains morally good, not becomes degenerate because I ignored yours to violate it

By degenerate I don't mean "bad", I mean "unstable". As in, the position of equal liberty can not exist with stability, because of the two processes I outlined above.

So then why are you encouraging them to develop such systems and cast off any human decency?

Because some systems are better than others. Because if you're going to be stuck with a system you might as well make it the best one that you can.

So the only thing protecting us from a small group of elites wielding power in evil ways is a small group of elites wielding power in evil ways?

In less evil and sometimes good ways. This is your favorite rhetorical gimmick and its so goddamn stupid because it exists in a world of black and white.You really are incapable of making a distinction between the present institutions of power and say, medieval serfdom? They're both equally bad? Because thats what your implying when you make that rhetorical point

 

[benjipwns]

By degenerate I don't mean "bad", I mean "unstable". As in, the position of equal liberty can not exist with stability, because of the two processes I outlined above.

The rights that stem from liberty remain irregardless of violations of them. We all exist with equal liberty at all times because we're humans. Some of us just get it more violated than others, especially if we're in North Korea.

You really are incapable of making a distinction between the present institutions of power and say, medieval serfdom?

What's the difference in their core premises?

Technology and other innovations from liberty have granted us greater escape, but the claim of the state corporation is unchanged since Plato through serfdom and to modern democratic fascism.

 

[The Technomancer]

The rights that stem from liberty remain irregardless of violations of them. We all exist with equal liberty at all times because we're humans. Some of us just get it more violated than others, especially if we're in North Korea.

What is your definition of liberty? Because if someone is holding a gun to my head I would call that an infringement of my liberty even if I'm technically "free" to let him shoot me

 

[Jooney]

This makes no sense. I didn't consider the violations prior to the VRA to be legal, but if we're going that route to enact new terms I find that only enacting stringent terms on certain states to be silly. They should have been enacted on all states. Just because Idaho doesn't have a past of racial discrimination doesn't mean it shouldn't have to meet the same standards as North Carolina because it may have a future of racial discrimination.

So you're for stronger civil rights protections at the federal level, and not for it to be left to the States?

How does this view comport to your previous statements about the federal government vis a vis its previous history of violence? It sounds to me that enacting stronger protections at the federal level would imply threats of violence to the States. And that's bad.

 

[benjipwns]

What is your definition of liberty?

In short: Self-ownership.

Because if someone is holding a gun to my head I would call that an infringement of my liberty even if I'm technically "free" to let him shoot me

Which is what I just said?

So you're for stronger civil rights protections at the federal level, and not for it to be left to the States?

How does this view comport to your previous statements about the federal government vis a vis its previous history of violence? It sounds to me that enacting stronger protections at the federal level would imply threats of violence to the States. And that's bad.

The federal government is tasked with preventing the States from violating the rights of its citizens. The federal government not only chose to ignore this regarding blacks specifically among others, but actively promoted the opposite for almost two centuries. (And I argue continues to.)

The federal government actually getting around to doing their job (and equally) doesn't get them off the hook for being shitbags in other ways. (Nor does it permit them to go overboard in trying to make up for past wrongs by further restricting rights.)

 

[The Technomancer]

In short: Self-ownership.


Which is what I just said?

So then...we don't all exist with equal liberty at all times?

The rights that stem from liberty remain irregardless of violations of them. We all exist with equal liberty at all times because we're humans. Some of us just get it more violated than others, especially if we're in North Korea.

EDIT:

What's the difference in their core premises?

Technology and other innovations from liberty have granted us greater escape, but the claim of the state corporation is unchanged since Plato through serfdom and to modern democratic fascism.

I guarantee you that I am more free to say, move between different forms of selling my labor now than I would as a serf. You can't handwave tangible differences like that

 

[benjipwns]

So then...we don't all exist with equal liberty at all times?

Your liberties being violated does not stop them from existing. They are innate. That's why we can say they're being violated.

I guarantee you that I am more free to say, move between different forms of selling my labor now than I would as a serf. You can't handwave tangible differences like that

I didn't, I pointed out economic and technological advancement. (Geographical advancement goes in there as corporations have expanded their territories.) But the claim the state makes on your labor is the same claim that the Lord and the King made. Because you are laboring with their "blessing" you owe them a portion of your labor.

I imagine when police departments fully militarize and internal borders are setup, the parallels get more obvious.