NYCmetsfan
Banned
greatest tie since bunker hill is GOAT
-
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 2015 |OT| Keep Calm and Diablos On
- Thread starter Aaron Strife
- Start date
- Status
greatest tie since bunker hill is GOAT
I went to the Hong Kong rugby 7s a couple of weeks ago (seriously, it's the greatest party on earth), and the US had a tievictory against England there as well (the US needed a tie to win the group).
Felt good, man.
I have to say, the US's tactic of "let's hand the ball to a brother who couldn't make the Jacksonville Jaguars practice squad and see how many white people he can run over" is working reasonably well.
Well, at least until you play Samoa, got dammit, they should rename that country Polamalustan.
The English headline slays me, especially the "We was robbed." They were so salty they couldn't form proper sentences. :lol
That sounds amazingly funny.
If you like funny sports games you need to be watching the CONCACAF Champion's League. The last two games had between 6 and 7 goals scored, each. It's not as good as Europe's, but goddamn is it entertaining.
benjipwns
Banned
I don't think you understand voluntaryism. Mob? Barricade?
I don't support the colors or the logo or anything other imagery associated with it. And they can't make me!
I think though that increasing power upwards to a few hands can't do anything but get farther away from liberalism and thus farther away from even libertarianism, let alone anarchy. But since the latter is just a state of mind really, the immediate former is the practical "endpoint."
I don't have to worry about the last one. Or the first or second because the faster we get to nationalized health care the faster we can get to outright political absurdity.
And if it works, I win because life is great. And if it fails, as it will, I win because I get to be right and rub it in your faces in the camps. The system is secretly rigged in my favor!
Actually, the primary thing I care about is the stuff in the First Amendment. I've accepted the rest is over. Least we can do is roll back some of those restrictions on free speech/press/assembly like Citizens United did before it's too late and they get stamped out in the name of
The Lives of Others didn't seem very fun. Though I suppose with my facetious and sarcasm there could be a bit of a thrill about hiding within The Party like a chameleon.
Sadly, I don't think any real life dystopia will look like that. It'll be boring like Brave New World.
Sadly, it's the only rational or logical economics. Like the "Churchill" saying about democracy, stinks but better than the alternatives.
You can support whatever policy you want, I'm just saying that justifying those things in the name of voluntarism or the coercive power of the state seems like a flawed reasoning.
Rationalism is trash, we tried it for centuries and what did we get?
Wow, those triangles are congruent with each other, so useful, much amazing.
Once we dumped it in favor of empiricism, boom, internet porn everywhere!
Go science, fuck rationalism.
I never followed CONCACAF champions league when I was in the US, I'm not going to start now, but I did go to a couple of US-Mexico games, in the Azteca and in the Rose Bowl, good times.
Edit: speaking of funny and the HK 7s - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75CwjfWfk8M
Fuck da police.
JesseEwiak
Member
Yes, the sainted right of both poor and rich American's to equally spend millions of dollars on political broadcasts aimed at destroying a political enemy. I mean, if Buckley vs. Valero is ever reversed, we might turn into a freedomless hellscape like...Belgium.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
Aww, but I thought we just all agreed the only way to have peace online is to simply not care.
Honestly though, I've tried to understand your point of view, but I still don't know what that point of view is. It's almost seems like a ideological lack of ideology, which seems so ethereal and unusable that it's impossible to speak to. I'd be fine with arguing in more detail if I could, but that's all I can really say about it from my current understanding of it.
One of the things I like about the internet is I can say dumb stuff I'm not completely sure about and people will call me out on it if it's actually insane. In real life, people are usually either too polite, or too uninformed to do that.
So what has changed your minds about things politically, if anything ever has?
I'd say the "supply side jesus" comics were huge in moving me from a Ron Paul follower to solid progressive, and I honestly wouldn't be vegan today if not for vegans constantly winning internet arguments with logic and facts.
I do wonder if as I move into my 30s and 40s if I'll be so informed about so many arguments and facts that it'd take an impossible amount of new arguments and facts to topple my current beliefs no matter how correct those beliefs are, but there's still probably a 17 year old out there still undecided on such things, reading these internet arguments, and forming opinions off the ones that make the most sense.
What the shit is he wearing? :lol
I wish I had video of it, but people were throwing shoes at the Montreal players during the game for doing so well in their last champion's league match (they lost 4-2). How the worst team in MLS made it to the final where they will face off against the richest team in North America I will never know. I mean I know how they made it, but I dunno what deal with the devil they made.
I feel like there might be shit Benji and I agree on, but every time I get close to figuring out what it might be it just slips through my fingers like smoke. Shit drives me crazy and I'm pretty sure he does it on purpose. I love him for it. Gotta respect good trolling, just gotta.
benjipwns
Banned
I don't know why opposing increasing the power of the state is contradictory with such a position. But I might be misinterpreting you here.
Austrian economics isn't a branch of rationalism. Many of its core challenges to economics of the time have been accepted into all branches of economics and were supported empirically and then confirmed again empirically. There's even some idiots at GMU who try to do "serious" quantitative Austrian economics. (And it's just as bad as all other economists.)
Mises and Rothbard definitely went the a priori/axomatic path, but Hayek and his group decidedly did not. Hayek did less empirical work because he lost interest in economics and switched over to philosophy (Much to the pleasure of the University of Chicago's economics department that paid to bring him over lol) but his "students" stayed empirical.
I agree with some though that Rothbard was the primary a priori "dean" and that Mises would have been more empirical except he started his career in the 1900s when it was a bit difficult to do quantitative work on the level of later years and by then he was already in his 50s-60s and had mainly "retired" to philosophy too. (Which also pleased the U.S. school that brought him over. A lot of his later books are just collections of his earlier lectures which proves he's a true academic. "Write new things? Psch, I'll have my intern type these 30 year old lecture notes into paragraphs. And write a new introduction.")
What I most agree with is the view that there's actually not major differences between Austrian, monetarist, Keynesian and "mainstream" economics on 90+% of things anymore. That a lot of their "debate" is on emphasis rather than anything else. (Austrians for example think micro > macro, other branches think the other way. But both think micro and macroeconomics have their places and values.)
Chartalism is a different story.
The Freedom of the Press is more important than any illusions about fair campaigns or elections.
If it's not Huemer, it's Bastiat. That's where you start. The unseen.
If you can stomach it, Huemer summarizes his book here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlTyOC32-vs
Why I love his book so much is that it's one of those books or writings that I'm sure everyone has run across where someone is coherently explaining something you've been trying to figure out how to word properly for a long time.
As for Bastiat, he's just epic, that's all. He's unstoppable. He cannot be stopped. And he's watching you. At all times.
A lot of people wear costumes to the Hong Kong 7s, not sure exactly why, probably because everyone is drunk as hell all the time there, and fuck it, why not? the more debauchery the better!
This year there were like 20 Australians who were dressed as North Korean soldiers, they had flags, they had the great leader, the only thing they did is boo is the living shit out of South Korea and the US wherever they played.
The great leader didn't have to buy a single drink all day, he could barely walk at the end of it -
Seriously, if you even remotely interested in sports, try to go there, it's ridiculously fun, and at nights the city go BONKERS.
Edit: the 7s has a stop in Vegas which also a lot of fun. Rugby 7s is just a fun sport to watch, even if you don't give a shit or understand rugby.
The Vegas 7s is pretty small by comparison (the smallest of the tour?), and from what I have seen not a majority of people dress up. Obviously that is a lot more accessible to people in this thread though.
I can attest to their fun though having attended the Wellington ones several times. Dressing up, drinking, flirting, great night(s) out on the town, with some rugby thrown in there somewhere.
Honestly, I looked in that thread when it was posted and I'm not entirely sure how I feel about it. I was a kid when it was happening so its not like the name or case have any meaning to me outside of what I can read about it online. I mean, if she's rehabilitated then she's rehabilitated. I'm not going to act like I know her better than the psychiatrist she's been dealing with. In the end it should be up to the schools and I doubt anyone would even give her a second look, let alone hire her.
All that said, the rule does exist for a reason. Let her teach at the college level, but not with little kids. They've got enough to deal with, their parents talking shit about their teacher isn't going to make their lives any easier.
Lets say for example we cut social security payments at some future date in the 2030s. Lets say for example that a financial crisis then happened in the 2040s that was largely unrelated to the social security cuts. Lets say for argument that this results in historically exceptional poverty among retirees.
We would paradoxically have both more freedom and more suffering, and a more pliant working class for exploitation.
benjipwns
Banned
Again, Chichikov and I were discussing whether or not my positions would lead to the reduction of the state, he thinks mine are contradictory to such a goal, I was, obviously, disagreeing.
Your hypothetical has nothing to do with my support of human rights and "favoring greater suffering" as you presumed greater suffering and mass poverty specifically unconnected to any policy proposal, let alone my views.
Your hypothetical has nothing to do with my support of human rights and "favoring greater suffering" as you presumed greater suffering and mass poverty specifically unconnected to any policy proposal, let alone my views.
From what I can gather Chichikov is saying that the things you propose wouldn't lead to less state power, but that they would only make people suffer more under the current system, which is exactly what my hypothetical was used to show. My contribution to it was that you wouldn't actually care because it fits under your conception of freedom.
benjipwns
Banned
Except this is 100% true for everyone in every hypothetical if they are to assume the premise that mass suffering will occur and nothing they could ever advocate for will change that. You also make the mistake he did that I "propose" such frivolities as social security cuts or medicare vouchers. As if they'll prevent mass suffering.
All I propose is that people do not advocate for coercive violence. And hopefully that they reject it. And I suggest, but not propose, that they rethink granting monopolies of any kind to corporations.
I do enjoy the "conception of freedom" as if there can be a form of freedom where one does not own themselves and their labor.
All I propose is that people do not advocate for coercive violence. And hopefully that they reject it. And I suggest, but not propose, that they rethink granting monopolies of any kind to corporations.
I do enjoy the "conception of freedom" as if there can be a form of freedom where one does not own themselves and their labor.
I'm not getting through to you I think, let me give it another stab -
I agree with you about the problematic nature of the state and how it force you to participate in a system with a threat of violence. And I'm totally 100% in support for a free association (which by the way as you probably know, Marx final stage of communism was as well).
But you seem to believe that you can cut services, reduce the size of the state until poof! it's gone! free association for all!
And I just don't see it happening, the transition from the current model to the one you and I want require a big and dramatic change.
Now it's fine to have an argument about whether or not certain services are best provided by the government or the private sector, but that discussion is a practical one, you can't bring you just concerns about the coercive power of the state to it.
For the sake of argument, let's say that I'm right and a single payer system provide better outcomes than a fully privatized system, if you move to a fully privatized system, you're still forcing me to participate in a system with the implicit threat of violence by agents of the state, only one with a shittier healthcare system. So yeah, I "reduced the size of the state" but how am I better?
benjipwns
Banned
No?
The current model is the one I "want" technically since it's the only one there can be, people just won't get on board with some slight details that would make it work better.
How?
I don't see why there's such hostility to a hypothetical. That's why I said "lets say for argument" not "this will happen for certain."
And I think it's fairly relevant. If the state and violence go so does medicare or social security as we know it, or more mundane policies if that's more comforting as an example. So it would probably be good to have some practical knowledge of how it might work without them and the state. It's nice to collect a bunch of links about government corruption and cobble them into to poligaf or other forums where there's no incentive to capitulate but I imagine explaining to some non-wealthy person in real life how they'd be better off with no government in their life would be rather difficult.
No.
That's where I disagree with you.
How what?
How am I still being coerced into participate in system and abide by rules I don't neccesairly agree with?
Like, really?
We just playing dumb now?
benjipwns
Banned
We do have a huge amount of practical knowledge, it's everything that happens including those things. The only difference with monopolies backed by the state is that your purchases and the distribution of your labor are not yours to decide, instead they're decided by political elites.
I meant "no?" as in that's not what I think.
Okay, assume your ideal lack of state. Where is the coercion forcing you to participate in something you don't want?
Unless you're calling nature "coercive"?
Again, we're not assuming the ideal lack of state, in that case you'll go and live in Benji's salmonella shit bunker and I'll be in the Glorious Cascadia Commune, where all parents are strong and wise and capable and all children are happy and beloved.
We're talking about a nation state with a private healthcare system, I'm still being coerced into accepting the rule of that state, right?
How are they decided by political elites, who are very small in number?
I think he's saying you don't get to assume ideal lack of state. You could easily get policies that reduce the state's size, like cutting health care, or social services, but still leave the elites intact to cause whatever mayhem they like.
"sent more than 21,000 postcards and made more".
I guess if you want to be on the wrong side of history, might as well do it in style.
benjipwns
Banned
Are you saying that others have a duty to provide you with their labor or you're being aggressively coerced against?
I can't get behind that.
What?
No, that's not what I'm saying at all.
For the 100th time, I'm saying we have a flawed system where people are coerced into participating in a system that they not necessarily agree with.
This is going to be true even if we privatize medicare.
What I'm saying that until I find a way to get out of this system to a free associative one, I want to see how I can get the best outcomes given the state that's were in.
Fully privatized healthcare system.
You're still a citizen of a state against your own free will.
Are you really just playing dumb now?
benjipwns
Banned
If it's fully privatized there's no involvement from the state, so while the state may exist elsewhere, it's not forcing me to interact with the natural health care market that pops up in any specific or coercive manner.
This is the more important statement though:
No one will willingly give up coercive violence except for nutjobs like me, because they assume "their" tribe has to use it against their perceived enemies before its used against them.
And they're right as far as it goes. But it seems to make us blind to our existing state of anarchy and the untold amount of voluntary non-coercive behavior happening constantly. Yet it's the corporate violence and theft that if we dialed back on or held still that would be so insane. It's the opening up of information rather than trying to keep it suppressed that's crazy talk.
It's sitcoms with gay teenage sons on ABC instead of more seasons of Better Off Ted.
No, you're wrong, I'm willing to give the coercive power of the state, fuck I want it to go away, for the 100th time, I'm all for a free associative society.
The difference between you and me is that given the current state of affair, I'm willing to use the system to try and achieve better results.
And again, if you have a path of eliminating the nation state and moving to situation where no one is force to participate in any system against their will, I'm all ears, but that's not what we're talking about here when we discussing stuff like how can a nation state best achieve healthcare outcomes.
benjipwns
Banned
I was you using the colloquial "you" not you you.
What am I doing other than "using the system to try and achieve better results"? I engage in the exchange of ideas with you and others, there's no higher use possible.
I already said what the path is and why it won't happen in my last post. People still need their proxy violence through corporations mainly for the same reason they always have, they just don't like certain people and want to punish them. And they assume they know how to decide for everyone better than everyone knows how to decide for themselves. So more power to the top for more violence to gain more power to the top. It's why the concentration of power in a central entity like a dictatorship of the proletariat never gives way to the withering of the state altogether, why would centralized power democratize and decentralize itself?
The self-fulfilling prophecy of their critique of nature. Might makes right, so we must have the most might and we'll be right. It'll work this time, these are topper top men. Perfect knowledge is possible if we suppress enough information. And so on and so on and so on...
/zizek
What am I doing other than "using the system to try and achieve better results"? I engage in the exchange of ideas with you and others, there's no higher use possible.
I already said what the path is and why it won't happen in my last post. People still need their proxy violence through corporations mainly for the same reason they always have, they just don't like certain people and want to punish them. And they assume they know how to decide for everyone better than everyone knows how to decide for themselves. So more power to the top for more violence to gain more power to the top. It's why the concentration of power in a central entity like a dictatorship of the proletariat never gives way to the withering of the state altogether, why would centralized power democratize and decentralize itself?
The self-fulfilling prophecy of their critique of nature. Might makes right, so we must have the most might and we'll be right. It'll work this time, these are topper top men. Perfect knowledge is possible if we suppress enough information. And so on and so on and so on...
/zizek
That's a bunch of slogans you've internalized Benji. "They just don't like people and want to punish them" I don't like fox news executives but I don't want them murdered and imprisoned, on the other hand if there were a bunch of free associating nambla communes cropping up around the country I'd have second thoughts about the acceptance of global non-violence dogma.
benjipwns
Banned
You altered what I said and then confirmed my original statement.
This fairly accurately sums up the corporate system:
And since you're sooooo interested in what my policy platform would be, I will offer it:
1. 95% flat tax on all incomes over $1 million, 70% flat tax on all incomes between $1 million and the median income, 45% flat tax on all incomes between the median and 4x the poverty line.
2. Outlaw private practice, insurance, medical care, etc. Medicare for All with all drug companies, hospitals, doctors, state-owned and state paid for. Cap costs at 10% of GDP or lower.
3. A Canadian like MST and GST of 25%.
4. 100% death tax, 2% yearly savings/wealth tax, 110% expat tax
5. Gradual replacement of all power plants with nuclear
6. Elimination on tax cap on social security, increase to 25% tax, means test Social Security
7. Universal income replacing all welfare programs of 3x the poverty line.
8. Elimination of minimum wage, mandatory unionization within all industries, 25% of all public stock to be held by the government, 26% by the unions, all industries prices set within competitive range by joint government-union-company boards
9. No corporate tax on public companies, 60% tax on revenue for private companies
10. Government ownership of all telecommunications with free access and no caps
11. All school funding at federal level, given to schools by inverse of graduation rates
12. Formation of all public utility companies into national ones instead of local, de-privatization of postal service and assumption of all transportation/delivery companies under their purview, increase airport, gas and other transport fees and taxes by % of increased usage each year
13. Eliminate all restrictions on freedom of press/assembly/speech
14. Ignore the Supreme Court lol jk
15. $1 billion Metroid fund established.
16. Replace the Senate with PR elected, 1% threshold (so 1% = 1 seat, 100 seats, easy peasy), double the size of the House.
17. Ban the President from delivering the State of the Union in person
18. Ban Lindsey Graham and Peter King from the country
19. Issue letters of marque and reprisal for Lindsey Graham and Peter King
20. Pass http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titles_of_Nobility_Amendment and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corwin_Amendment
21. Fifty-four forty or fight!
EDIT: Enact the Ecotic Comprehensive Immigration Reform Plan
This fairly accurately sums up the corporate system:
Vaclav Havel said:
And since you're sooooo interested in what my policy platform would be, I will offer it:
1. 95% flat tax on all incomes over $1 million, 70% flat tax on all incomes between $1 million and the median income, 45% flat tax on all incomes between the median and 4x the poverty line.
2. Outlaw private practice, insurance, medical care, etc. Medicare for All with all drug companies, hospitals, doctors, state-owned and state paid for. Cap costs at 10% of GDP or lower.
3. A Canadian like MST and GST of 25%.
4. 100% death tax, 2% yearly savings/wealth tax, 110% expat tax
5. Gradual replacement of all power plants with nuclear
6. Elimination on tax cap on social security, increase to 25% tax, means test Social Security
7. Universal income replacing all welfare programs of 3x the poverty line.
8. Elimination of minimum wage, mandatory unionization within all industries, 25% of all public stock to be held by the government, 26% by the unions, all industries prices set within competitive range by joint government-union-company boards
9. No corporate tax on public companies, 60% tax on revenue for private companies
10. Government ownership of all telecommunications with free access and no caps
11. All school funding at federal level, given to schools by inverse of graduation rates
12. Formation of all public utility companies into national ones instead of local, de-privatization of postal service and assumption of all transportation/delivery companies under their purview, increase airport, gas and other transport fees and taxes by % of increased usage each year
13. Eliminate all restrictions on freedom of press/assembly/speech
14. Ignore the Supreme Court lol jk
15. $1 billion Metroid fund established.
16. Replace the Senate with PR elected, 1% threshold (so 1% = 1 seat, 100 seats, easy peasy), double the size of the House.
17. Ban the President from delivering the State of the Union in person
18. Ban Lindsey Graham and Peter King from the country
19. Issue letters of marque and reprisal for Lindsey Graham and Peter King
20. Pass http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titles_of_Nobility_Amendment and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corwin_Amendment
21. Fifty-four forty or fight!
EDIT: Enact the Ecotic Comprehensive Immigration Reform Plan
@Nate Cohn
"Everything that I've read about the Clinton campaign rollout sounds like they've overthought everything"
"The emphasis on small venues, refusing general election dollars--it all seems unnecessarily defensive and insecure"
"Anyone who's been a coach or a competitor knows what it looks like--and how self-defeating it is--when someone is afraid of losing."
Hillary has her critics even from neutral journalism.
"Everything that I've read about the Clinton campaign rollout sounds like they've overthought everything"
"The emphasis on small venues, refusing general election dollars--it all seems unnecessarily defensive and insecure"
"Anyone who's been a coach or a competitor knows what it looks like--and how self-defeating it is--when someone is afraid of losing."
Hillary has her critics even from neutral journalism.
RastaMentality
Banned
As long as she doesn't make any major gaffes or fuck ups, she should honestly be fine. I'm curious how her team is handling which police brutality incidents to reply to.
They're probably not going to say anything unless there's video proving it.
Yellowtail
Member
It's pretty well established that she has toxic relations with the press. As @markhalperin said this week:
It's no wonder what she does is overthought if she's going to get overscrutinized.
I'm going to trust in her team on this. Podesta/Mook/Benenson/Margolis/Palmieri have a brilliant track record, and are lightyears better than the incompetent Penn/McAuliffe/Solis Doyle/Wolson inner circle of 2008. Getting rid of Mark Penn alone...
Aaron Strife
Banned
Oh, Mark Halperin said it? Well it must be true
GOP missed their best (or at least most known) candidate in the Florida Senate race, Jeff Atwater. Good news for Patrick Murphy
GOP missed their best (or at least most known) candidate in the Florida Senate race, Jeff Atwater. Good news for Patrick Murphy
Yellowtail
Member
Halperin's a dumbass but he practically embodies the beltway. At the very least the press want a competitive horse race, so it suits them to bring down the frontrunner a few pegs.
PhoenixDark
Banned
I'll take Halperin's word when he's talking about the beltway because that's literally the only issue he has mastered. Everything else he says is tryhard bullshit.
Hillary doesn't do well when challenged by the media. Get ready for awkward interviews next week, think pieces about sexism, etc. To be fair I think most candidates will look pretty shitty between now and the summer. I could see the media doing its best to elevate Martin O'Malley and Marco Rubio though.
Hillary doesn't do well when challenged by the media. Get ready for awkward interviews next week, think pieces about sexism, etc. To be fair I think most candidates will look pretty shitty between now and the summer. I could see the media doing its best to elevate Martin O'Malley and Marco Rubio though.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Well, there goes Walker. A moment of sanity in a career of insanity will cost him the whole thing, no way does the NRA not try and take him out now.
Poodlestrike
Banned
The fact that legislating is apparently a gaffe says... basically everything you need to know about the Republican Party, doesn't it.
Coriolanus
Banned
*logs*
*reads the last hundred posts*
...the heck happened to poligaf? you all being friendly and praising each other is even weirder than when i check comigaf and it's all miniatures, animes and manga. Which has been happening nearly every weekend.
Listen, the rules are simple. Benji b cray, Meta be a different kind of cray (pedantic-type pokeman. weak vs sleep, strong vs adhd. extra weak vs administrative law), and everybody else has terribly low (although realistic) standards for what to expect from democrats.
Anyway.
I dunno why you gave up on changing people's opinions apk. While you haven't ever changed mine, you've sometimes shown me sides of my opinions that i hadn't adequately explored, and that's pretty decent by itself. Same goes for benj.
*reads the last hundred posts*
...the heck happened to poligaf? you all being friendly and praising each other is even weirder than when i check comigaf and it's all miniatures, animes and manga. Which has been happening nearly every weekend.
Listen, the rules are simple. Benji b cray, Meta be a different kind of cray (pedantic-type pokeman. weak vs sleep, strong vs adhd. extra weak vs administrative law), and everybody else has terribly low (although realistic) standards for what to expect from democrats.
Anyway.
I dunno why you gave up on changing people's opinions apk. While you haven't ever changed mine, you've sometimes shown me sides of my opinions that i hadn't adequately explored, and that's pretty decent by itself. Same goes for benj.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked