Reforming Democracy

For discussions of culture, politics, economics, sociology, law, business and any other topic that falls under the social science remit.

Re: Reforming Democracy

gib wrote:"Hate speech" is a term given to nefarious uses, however much it might have been intended for the right uses,

I think it is being used for the purpose for which it was originally intended- the criminalization of unwanted political speech.

I guess this would fall under Eric's "unenforceable laws" as it is patently difficult to identify what counts as hate speech and what doesn't (I mean, there are the obvious cases,

I haven't been reading your exchanges with Eric, but laws regulating speech and the dissemination of information are very enforceable, depending on how serious you take them.

But just FYI, if you tell a Canadian he has no free speech, he's probably going to laugh at you.

I can take it. No less true for that.

No, I know racism is something anyone can be towards any other race (or even one's own). When I used "reverse racism", it was when I still had the image of the liberal as one who was against race discrimination (as opposed to the other strain of liberal whom you're connecting with Marxism and eugenics), so it was difficult for me to square the idea of a "racist liberal"--except in the sense of reverse racism which I can see many liberals being.

In my country, liberals support and enforce a law that says that businesses and universities are required to take a person's race into consideration when hiring/accepting them, and can face penalties if not enough people of various races are hired. I've been told by university professors that it will be much harder for me to get a job in academia because I'm not a racial minority, or a woman. I suppose you I could draw a connection between this and Marxism, but racial discrimination isn't just for the 'way out there' leftists.

http://deepfreeze.it/ Curious about corrupt practices in video game journalism? Look no further.

Uccisore
The Legitimatizer

Posts: 13279
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2002 8:14 pm
Location: Deep in the forests of Maine

Re: Reforming Democracy

Uccisore wrote:I think it is being used for the purpose for which it was originally intended- the criminalization of unwanted political speech.

You make it sound so innocuous--"unwanted political speech"--but if I recall (Google didn't help me in this case), the impetus for hate speech laws came about after World War II in response to the effects of Hitler's anti-Semitic propaganda and charismatic style of oration. I think the prevention of having that happen again was the intent... but like I said, it's a loosy-goosy term that can be reinterpreted any way you like.

Uccisore wrote:I haven't been reading your exchanges with Eric, but laws regulating speech and the dissemination of information are very enforceable, depending on how serious you take them.

By "unenforceable" we meant "difficult to enforce justly". It came about over the question of whether it would be useful to have a law criminalizing lies or the withholding of truth by politicians. I thought it would be rather useless since I couldn't think of a way to enforce it (i.e. determine whether a politician really was lying or just made a mistake or remembered incorrectly...) and Eric thought it would be dangerous because it could be enforced any damn way you'd want--depending on how you interpret it or determine whether a politician was lying or not. So yeah, such laws can easily be enforced, but rarely ever justly.

Uccisore wrote:In my country, liberals support and enforce a law that says that businesses and universities are required to take a person's race into consideration when hiring/accepting them, and can face penalties if not enough people of various races are hired. I've been told by university professors that it will be much harder for me to get a job in academia because I'm not a racial minority, or a woman. I suppose you I could draw a connection between this and Marxism, but racial discrimination isn't just for the 'way out there' leftists.

I've read about those laws, and I think they're complete bull shit. For my standards, that is "way out there" leftist. It's as if it were a law concocted as a knee-jerk reaction by someone who was severely lacking in the department of rationality. I mean, what if not enough people of color applied for the job? What if there actually is a genetic difference between races on job preference? What if the employer simply lives in an area scarce in a certain racial group? Is he suppose to fly people in from different parts of the country just to "balance out" the diversity of races? So yeah, I'm with you on this one.

Oh, and look what I found in my Googling:

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/06/27 ... ights-act/
My thoughts | My art | My music | My poetry

In fact, the idea that there's more differences between groups than there is between individuals is actually the fundamental racist idea.
- Jordan Peterson

Here's a good rule of thumb for politics--attribute everything to stupidity unless you can prove malice.
- Ben Shapiro

right outta high school i tried to get a job as a proctologist but i couldn't find an opening.
- promethean75

Ahh... gib, zombie universes are so last year! I’m doing hyper dimensional mirror realities now.
- Ecmandu

gib
resident exorcist

Posts: 9010
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
Location: in your mom

Re: Reforming Democracy

gib wrote:I've read about those laws, and I think they're complete bull shit. For my standards, that is "way out there" leftist. It's as if it were a law concocted as a knee-jerk reaction by someone who was severely lacking in the department of rationality. I mean, what if not enough people of color applied for the job? What if there actually is a genetic difference between races on job preference? What if the employer simply lives in an area scarce in a certain racial group? Is he suppose to fly people in from different parts of the country just to "balance out" the diversity of races? So yeah, I'm with you on this one.
I'd support them if the statistics were held to a standard, in all jobs. It's not enough to have the only limitation be, must hire x% of minorities, instead you must hire a specific amount of each, so the companies have "proper" racial quotas... It would be disastrous, and amazing to watch. Especially when, Basketball teams and rap music companies must suddenly hire 50% whites...
“Give a man a fish and he will ask for tartar sauce and French fries! Moreover, some politician who wants his vote will declare all these things to be among his ‘basic rights’” – An old saying rewritten by a follower of Thomas Sowell

"It's true that the bastards would win. But we shouldn't shut down a system just because the bastards win. A good system should be like a hamster wheel for bastards hooked up an electric generator. A well designed system is not one that prevents bastards from winning, but one that generates a lot of positive externalities from bastards trying to beat each other. And that's exactly what markets do. Markets entice bastards, they reward bastards, and the bastards love them, but as they operate they generate a lot of good that inadvertently benefits everyone else." - Carleas

The Newest EconPop: Economics of Demolition Man

The man, Thomas Sowell: Wealth, Poverty and Politics

Sowell's Writing

Eric_The_Pipe
Thinker

Posts: 736
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 12:06 pm

Re: Reforming Democracy

Eric_The_Pipe wrote:I'd support them if the statistics were held to a standard, in all jobs. It's not enough to have the only limitation be, must hire x% of minorities, instead you must hire a specific amount of each, so the companies have "proper" racial quotas... It would be disastrous, and amazing to watch. Especially when, Basketball teams and rap music companies must suddenly hire 50% whites...

And then why stop at race or sex or religion? Why not eye color, or hair? Why not height? Why not dental hygiene?

What if the company has only 3 employees? Is each person supposed to be divided up into different races, sex, etc.?

And why would a black dude want to be working for a white supremacist employer?

This is a prime example of government fucking things up, isn't it? And they probably knew the difficulties with this, but figured "Well, we gotta make our liberal constituents happy, so let's just make a blanket law that sounds good on paper and let the little companies work out the difficulties on their own."
My thoughts | My art | My music | My poetry

In fact, the idea that there's more differences between groups than there is between individuals is actually the fundamental racist idea.
- Jordan Peterson

Here's a good rule of thumb for politics--attribute everything to stupidity unless you can prove malice.
- Ben Shapiro

right outta high school i tried to get a job as a proctologist but i couldn't find an opening.
- promethean75

Ahh... gib, zombie universes are so last year! I’m doing hyper dimensional mirror realities now.
- Ecmandu

gib
resident exorcist

Posts: 9010
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
Location: in your mom

Re: Reforming Democracy

gib wrote:
Eric_The_Pipe wrote:I'd support them if the statistics were held to a standard, in all jobs. It's not enough to have the only limitation be, must hire x% of minorities, instead you must hire a specific amount of each, so the companies have "proper" racial quotas... It would be disastrous, and amazing to watch. Especially when, Basketball teams and rap music companies must suddenly hire 50% whites...

And then why stop at race or sex or religion? Why not eye color, or hair? Why not height? Why not dental hygiene?

What if the company has only 3 employees? Is each person supposed to be divided up into different races, sex, etc.?

And why would a black dude want to be working for a white supremacist employer?

This is a prime example of government fucking things up, isn't it? And they probably knew the difficulties with this, but figured "Well, we gotta make our liberal constituents happy, so let's just make a blanket law that sounds good on paper and let the little companies work out the difficulties on their own."
It is an example of experts stepping in with solutions. And it gets worse, as I said, preferential treatment helps no one, regardless of what it is called, regardless of who it helps, from the whites of South Africa during the apartheid to the blacks of America with affirmative action. At best, it simply lowers the standards, resulting in an undermining of the abilities of the preferred group. At worst, it divides people by race, and distances them from each other. This was seen in South Africa, as Blacks would take jobs for less, resulting in getting hired more often (often with a white "in charge" to by pass any stupid laws) to India, were special rules for untouchables (or whatever the word is) are turned into a hated group, because when you pass over 91 people to find the one untouchable that meets the requirements, you don't piss off just the one person that would have gotten the job, you piss off everyone else, even if it was very unlikely they where going to get the job...

It would be damned funny to watch the other groups happen, think of the CEO's of the world, right now there are screams about not enough women, but what about red necks. There are even less red necks CEO's of the fortune 500 companies... I demand this be fixed, with government force if necessary...
“Give a man a fish and he will ask for tartar sauce and French fries! Moreover, some politician who wants his vote will declare all these things to be among his ‘basic rights’” – An old saying rewritten by a follower of Thomas Sowell

"It's true that the bastards would win. But we shouldn't shut down a system just because the bastards win. A good system should be like a hamster wheel for bastards hooked up an electric generator. A well designed system is not one that prevents bastards from winning, but one that generates a lot of positive externalities from bastards trying to beat each other. And that's exactly what markets do. Markets entice bastards, they reward bastards, and the bastards love them, but as they operate they generate a lot of good that inadvertently benefits everyone else." - Carleas

The Newest EconPop: Economics of Demolition Man

The man, Thomas Sowell: Wealth, Poverty and Politics

Sowell's Writing

Eric_The_Pipe
Thinker

Posts: 736
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 12:06 pm

Re: Reforming Democracy

lizbethrose wrote:I am pragmatic, in case none of you have realized that.

I believe you believe you are. That you believe you only care about what works, that you want to do the best for others... And so is does every liberal ever. Stating this line is a liberal cliche, so much so, that it is one discussed in Tyranny of Cliches. You stating things like this is one of many reasons I, and Ucci, call you a liberal. By saying it, everything you want suddenly is not political, in your view, but just the right, pragmatic, thing to do. Note, this is also why progressives call themselves progressive, because being against them is being against progress. (Progressive did come out of Pragmatism, so that makes sense.)

Democrats and Republicans are not quite the same, though only because, they are actual political parties instead of political movement.

My response is, I don't care if you are pragmatic, I don't like the policies you have stated and will actively work against them... Now what?

Now what, Eric? Nothing. I not trying to 'win you over' to my way of thinking; I have never tried. And I'm sure you realize you're not going to change the way I think. So?

I am a bit disappointed with your reply to me, however. You and gib may think you've answered my questions, but I don't think you have. You weren't really specific about wanting to buy a gun w/o any paper work; you only got specific with gib. Then, your reply boiled down to you don't think any of the gun control laws really work, or they don't work as they are 'supposed' to work. Am I correct? I happen to agree with you. Background checks don't do diddly-squat to keep weapons out of the hands of people who might use them at the drop of a hat.

As for health insurance, you can buy any health insurance you want, the law doesn't limit that choice. But it does say that you have to have health insurance or pay a fine. There are several reasons for that, one of which is economics. But that brings up something that gib has already raised--for every 'study' made to show that caring for an uninsured sick or injured person costs the tax payer more than caring for an insured person, there will be another study that says it doesn't. Since it's human nature to want self-affirmation, you'll believe any 'study' you want to believe. I happen to agree with the studies that show it costs the tax payer more to care for an uninsured person--plus it overcrowds the emergency rooms.

I hate having my tax money financing wars; I dislike my tax money used for what came about as the result of 9-11; I dislike my tax money being used to develop weapons, but those are all interrelated. I'd also never keep an alligator in my bathtub if I lived in Florida; it's against Florida state law. That's being specific; you haven't been.
_________________

The US has had free markets. It may not have been exactly like the Austrian theory or as Sowell would have it, but the US market has been free and was until 1877 and the Commerce Act. The Commerce Act was passed because of the railroads and the lousy way the railroad owners ran them. It was the first Federal law passed to regulate the Market. You've said that regulation stifles invention. But then you switched, in a way, and started talking about 'innovation' rather than invention and went on to show that there's innovation all over the place--so what do you mean, exactly. You say there's no innovation in the drug business, but, if that's true, how come there are so many variations on the same basic drug on the market? (You mentioned fashion as being an example of innovation because it changes every year. Yes, it must. But, again, the innovations in fashion are nothing more than variations on the fashions of the past--that sold. An aside: when did men's fashions last change?)

Finally, you place your dream of charity on religious organizations, primarily, and private charities. That's fine, up to a point. But. . .

There are very few charitable non-profits that aren't businesses. They pay overhead just as any business does; it's what's left over that goes to the poor. And it isn't always the poor in the US that are helped. Do you know of a charity that dedicates available funds for poverty relief in the US? Even Church organizations hold donation drives to relieve the poverty of the world and a lot of that's done to make converts.

What organization has the responsibility to care for all its people other than the Government?

Yes, the Government mucks a lot of things up--remember the Bridge to Nowhere? Yes, the Government can be too far from the people. We're one hell of a big country. Our elected representatives are supposed to be our voice, but are they? First of all, I'd bet that most of the population doesn't even know what they're elected to do, and given recent events, it's kind of obvious that the representatives themselves don't know. According to Ucci, that would change if a balance between conservatives and liberals on university faculties were to be maintained. But is that really the answer?

This thread is about reforming democracy as exemplified by the US system (which the US wants to spread throughout the world); but, imm, that would take much more than a paradigm shift.

Enjoy,

Liz
"Be what you would seem to be - or, if you'd like it put more simply - never imagine yourself not to be otherwise than what it might appear to others that what you were or might have been was not otherwise than what you had been would have appeared to them to be otherwise."
— Lewis Carroll
lizbethrose
Philosopher

Posts: 3556
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2011 6:55 am
Location: Pacific Northwest

Re: Reforming Democracy

lizbethrose wrote:Now what, Eric? Nothing. I not trying to 'win you over' to my way of thinking; I have never tried. And I'm sure you realize you're not going to change the way I think. So?

I am a bit disappointed with your reply to me, however. You and gib may think you've answered my questions, but I don't think you have. You weren't really specific about wanting to buy a gun w/o any paper work; you only got specific with gib.
That is because your question equates to, list all the people you know. When I provide a small list of first names, you now say, they aren't specific enough.

All laws limit freedom. All laws reduce the actions of the individuals, that is what they are for. When we put a law against murdering people, we are limiting freedom, the freedom to murder. And while we would be hard pressed to find, a reasonable, someone pissed off at that lack of murdering freedom in this country, that is what laws do, and what you asked for.

Why don't you instead, list a law that doesn't limit freedom? Cuz then, I can show you it does...

lizbethrose wrote: Then, your reply boiled down to you don't think any of the gun control laws really work, or they don't work as they are 'supposed' to work. Am I correct? I happen to agree with you. Background checks don't do diddly-squat to keep weapons out of the hands of people who might use them at the drop of a hat.
That is a boiled down. Though, I said, I am ok with a very few of those laws, As my mother has said, locks only really keep uninterested people out, anyone really interested in getting in your car is going to get in. Doesn't mean you don't lock your doors. The five day wait and small background check, are the equivalent of locking the door for me. People that should get in, are inconvenienced, like needing to keep track of keys or get them out to unlock the door. That inconvenience is enough of a small deterrent.

lizbethrose wrote:As for health insurance, you can buy any health insurance you want, the law doesn't limit that choice. But it does say that you have to have health insurance or pay a fine. There are several reasons for that, one of which is economics. But that brings up something that gib has already raised--for every 'study' made to show that caring for an uninsured sick or injured person costs the tax payer more than caring for an insured person, there will be another study that says it doesn't. Since it's human nature to want self-affirmation, you'll believe any 'study' you want to believe. I happen to agree with the studies that show it costs the tax payer more to care for an uninsured person--plus it overcrowds the emergency rooms.
It does limit choice. People now have to pay for things they may not want, that is a limitation of choice. Taxes are laws, that limit the choice of a person to do with the resources they have earned. The new law is a tax, the Supreme Court said so. Don't need a study, that is a definition thing. What the goal of the law was, is not part of your original question.

lizbethrose wrote:I hate having my tax money financing wars; I dislike my tax money used for what came about as the result of 9-11; I dislike my tax money being used to develop weapons, but those are all interrelated. I'd also never keep an alligator in my bathtub if I lived in Florida; it's against Florida state law. That's being specific; you haven't been.
Yes, taxes limit choice. Also, morality is not law. But, law must be moral, else it undermines law.

lizbethrose wrote:The US has had free markets. It may not have been exactly like the Austrian theory or as Sowell would have it, but the US market has been free and was until 1877 and the Commerce Act. The Commerce Act was passed because of the railroads and the lousy way the railroad owners ran them. It was the first Federal law passed to regulate the Market. You've said that regulation stifles invention. But then you switched, in a way, and started talking about 'innovation' rather than invention and went on to show that there's innovation all over the place--so what do you mean, exactly. You say there's no innovation in the drug business, but, if that's true, how come there are so many variations on the same basic drug on the market? (You mentioned fashion as being an example of innovation because it changes every year. Yes, it must. But, again, the innovations in fashion are nothing more than variations on the fashions of the past--that sold. An aside: when did men's fashions last change?)
Invention is innovation. I use them interchangeably, most people I know who talk about either do...

Quite often, watch a fashion show. It is usually only small things, but they change... (I paint a little, and when I was learning I picked up a lot of color theory, and my drawing class taught me lines... So, I'm better at noticing now. Though I still roll my eyes, being the person I am.)

lizbethrose wrote:Finally, you place your dream of charity on religious organizations, primarily, and private charities. That's fine, up to a point. But. . .

There are very few charitable non-profits that aren't businesses. They pay overhead just as any business does; it's what's left over that goes to the poor. And it isn't always the poor in the US that are helped. Do you know of a charity that dedicates available funds for poverty relief in the US? Even Church organizations hold donation drives to relieve the poverty of the world and a lot of that's done to make converts.
Yes, my local church does. They have a food bank. The problem with charities is how they must be run, it results in less efficiency, so, it may actually be better that they are run as businesses. At least if you want to help the poor, more than you want to feel good about helping the poor. Overhead is a necessary thing, else those greedy business men would find a way to not pay it.

lizbethrose wrote:What organization has the responsibility to care for all its people other than the Government?
But it is not the governments responsibility to care for all its people. It is its responsibility to keep everyone from killing each other, to provide a basic level of justice. Caring for people is what parents are for, I do not want another parent in the form of government officials.

lizbethrose wrote:Yes, the Government mucks a lot of things up--remember the Bridge to Nowhere? Yes, the Government can be too far from the people. We're one hell of a big country. Our elected representatives are supposed to be our voice, but are they? First of all, I'd bet that most of the population doesn't even know what they're elected to do, and given recent events, it's kind of obvious that the representatives themselves don't know.
"You will find that [the] State is the kind of organisation which, though it does big things badly, does small things badly too." - John Kenneth Galbraith

lizbethrose wrote:According to Ucci, that would change if a balance between conservatives and liberals on university faculties were to be maintained. But is that really the answer?
Actually, when I read Ucci, the problem isn't that they must be maintained to a desired level, but that they must be honest about their bias. Laws demanding affirmative action don't help anyone, even (possibly especially) the protected group.

lizbethrose wrote:This thread is about reforming democracy as exemplified by the US system (which the US wants to spread throughout the world); but, imm, that would take much more than a paradigm shift.
As long as it is a shift to the right, I'm with you.

lizbethrose wrote:Enjoy,

Liz
\NEVER!\
“Give a man a fish and he will ask for tartar sauce and French fries! Moreover, some politician who wants his vote will declare all these things to be among his ‘basic rights’” – An old saying rewritten by a follower of Thomas Sowell

"It's true that the bastards would win. But we shouldn't shut down a system just because the bastards win. A good system should be like a hamster wheel for bastards hooked up an electric generator. A well designed system is not one that prevents bastards from winning, but one that generates a lot of positive externalities from bastards trying to beat each other. And that's exactly what markets do. Markets entice bastards, they reward bastards, and the bastards love them, but as they operate they generate a lot of good that inadvertently benefits everyone else." - Carleas

The Newest EconPop: Economics of Demolition Man

The man, Thomas Sowell: Wealth, Poverty and Politics

Sowell's Writing

Eric_The_Pipe
Thinker

Posts: 736
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 12:06 pm

Re: Reforming Democracy

lizbethrose wrote:This thread is about reforming democracy...

Actually, I don't even know if it's about that anymore.

Eric, I haven't forgotten about your big long reply to me. I'm preparing a response (it's got graphs! ).
My thoughts | My art | My music | My poetry

In fact, the idea that there's more differences between groups than there is between individuals is actually the fundamental racist idea.
- Jordan Peterson

Here's a good rule of thumb for politics--attribute everything to stupidity unless you can prove malice.
- Ben Shapiro

right outta high school i tried to get a job as a proctologist but i couldn't find an opening.
- promethean75

Ahh... gib, zombie universes are so last year! I’m doing hyper dimensional mirror realities now.
- Ecmandu

gib
resident exorcist

Posts: 9010
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
Location: in your mom

Re: Reforming Democracy

gib wrote:You make it sound so innocuous--"unwanted political speech"--

I make it sound like what it is. I don't dress it up with a term like 'hate speech' to take away from what's happening- the criminalization of unwanted political speech.

but if I recall (Google didn't help me in this case), the impetus for hate speech laws came about after World War II in response to the effects of Hitler's anti-Semitic propaganda and charismatic style of oration. I think the prevention of having that happen again was the intent...

I know Germany did something like that, yeah. Are we considering hate speech laws to be a global phenomenon traced back to a single source, or might it be that Canada does it for a completely different reason than the U.S. may do it and so on?

gib wrote:By "unenforceable" we meant "difficult to enforce justly". It came about over the question of whether it would be useful to have a law criminalizing lies or the withholding of truth by politicians. I thought it would be rather useless since I couldn't think of a way to enforce it (i.e. determine whether a politician really was lying or just made a mistake or remembered incorrectly...) and Eric thought it would be dangerous because it could be enforced any damn way you'd want--depending on how you interpret it or determine whether a politician was lying or not. So yeah, such laws can easily be enforced, but rarely ever justly.

Yeah, I'd say it can't be enforced justly because it's not a just premise in the first place- it would be like trying to enforce forced sterilization justly or the criminalization of religion justly.

gib wrote:I've read about those laws, and I think they're complete bull shit.

Me too. They came about for a good reason though. After slavery and desegregation, it was decided that blacks were in this slump were nobody would hire them for good jobs because they didn't have a good education, and they didn't have good educations because they were poor from not having good jobs, etc. So it was decided that we would temporarily (for like one generation) take legal measures to get tons of blacks in schools and professional positions to get them up to a level playing field. Here we are, 50 years later, the laws still in place and no sign of it having accomplished squat.
You guys have it too, by the way, under the term Employment Equity. I'm glad you think it's 'way out there' leftist, but in terms of how many leftists seem to support it and the mainstream politicians that advocate it, it's really not far left in demographic terms...unless most leftists are far leftists.

What if there actually is a genetic difference between races on job preference?

That strays very close to hate speech. You have to ask yourself, if there was such a difference, would it be legal to teach about it in Canadian schools? I'm seriously asking. And just to remind you I'm not picking on Canada- such a difference wouldn't be taught in American schools either, because the leftist hegemony doesn't want something like that to be true.

I'm a little confused on that. The headline makes it sound like the law is gone, but if you read a little further down, it makes it sound like all the same stuff is illegal, they just take you to an actual court instead of a scary-sounding Human Rights Tribunal.

http://deepfreeze.it/ Curious about corrupt practices in video game journalism? Look no further.

Uccisore
The Legitimatizer

Posts: 13279
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2002 8:14 pm
Location: Deep in the forests of Maine

Re: Reforming Democracy

gib wrote:Eric, I haven't forgotten about your big long reply to me. I'm preparing a response (it's got graphs! ).
Ooo, I like graphs.
“Give a man a fish and he will ask for tartar sauce and French fries! Moreover, some politician who wants his vote will declare all these things to be among his ‘basic rights’” – An old saying rewritten by a follower of Thomas Sowell

"It's true that the bastards would win. But we shouldn't shut down a system just because the bastards win. A good system should be like a hamster wheel for bastards hooked up an electric generator. A well designed system is not one that prevents bastards from winning, but one that generates a lot of positive externalities from bastards trying to beat each other. And that's exactly what markets do. Markets entice bastards, they reward bastards, and the bastards love them, but as they operate they generate a lot of good that inadvertently benefits everyone else." - Carleas

The Newest EconPop: Economics of Demolition Man

The man, Thomas Sowell: Wealth, Poverty and Politics

Sowell's Writing

Eric_The_Pipe
Thinker

Posts: 736
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 12:06 pm

Re: Reforming Democracy

Eric,
Nice to see you read Tyranny of Cliches as well. You should check out David Mamet's "The Secret Knowledge" if you haven't.

http://deepfreeze.it/ Curious about corrupt practices in video game journalism? Look no further.

Uccisore
The Legitimatizer

Posts: 13279
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2002 8:14 pm
Location: Deep in the forests of Maine

Re: Reforming Democracy

Uccisore wrote:Eric,
Nice to see you read Tyranny of Cliches as well. You should check out David Mamet's "The Secret Knowledge" if you haven't.
Oh, yeah, Goldberg is one of my favorite pundits. I've read Tyranny of cliches and Liberal Fascism, I also read his postings on National Review, his newest is very interesting, tying a lot of things back to WWI...

I also got to see him live in boulder.. I enjoyed that very much despite being very sick at the time.

I'll add Mamet to my list (I just picked up "Poor Economics" and'll be working on that first.)
“Give a man a fish and he will ask for tartar sauce and French fries! Moreover, some politician who wants his vote will declare all these things to be among his ‘basic rights’” – An old saying rewritten by a follower of Thomas Sowell

"It's true that the bastards would win. But we shouldn't shut down a system just because the bastards win. A good system should be like a hamster wheel for bastards hooked up an electric generator. A well designed system is not one that prevents bastards from winning, but one that generates a lot of positive externalities from bastards trying to beat each other. And that's exactly what markets do. Markets entice bastards, they reward bastards, and the bastards love them, but as they operate they generate a lot of good that inadvertently benefits everyone else." - Carleas

The Newest EconPop: Economics of Demolition Man

The man, Thomas Sowell: Wealth, Poverty and Politics

Sowell's Writing

Eric_The_Pipe
Thinker

Posts: 736
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 12:06 pm

Re: Reforming Democracy

Uccisore wrote:I make it sound like what it is. I don't dress it up with a term like 'hate speech' to take away from what's happening- the criminalization of unwanted political speech.

...

I know Germany did something like that, yeah. Are we considering hate speech laws to be a global phenomenon traced back to a single source, or might it be that Canada does it for a completely different reason than the U.S. may do it and so on?

Sure, it might be (another research project for me I guess). I was responding to this:

Uccisore wrote:
gib wrote:"Hate speech" is a term given to nefarious uses, however much it might have been intended for the right uses,

I think it is being used for the purpose for which it was originally intended- the criminalization of unwanted political speech.

I'm not sure what the original intent was when it was implemented in Canada, but I was thinking globally--as in, when the term first showed up in history... ever. Also, judging from the wording I used, I think I meant it in a hypothetical sense--as in, if it was intended for the right use, or regardless of whether it was intended for the right use.

Your wording does capture quite nicely the broad spectrum of cases in which it might be, and is being, used (or misused?), but I think if we're talking about the first instance of such a law (if that was in Germany after World War II--I'd have to confirm this), it should be narrowed down to something like "public speech intended to reach a significant portion of the masses with the intent of arousing actions aimed at doing serious harm or of killing others [without justification?]."

Uccisore wrote:Yeah, I'd say it can't be enforced justly because it's not a just premise in the first place- it would be like trying to enforce forced sterilization justly or the criminalization of religion justly.

Good point, if the law really is phrase as you described it:

Uccisore wrote:In my country, liberals support and enforce a law that says that businesses and universities are required to take a person's race into consideration when hiring/accepting them, and can face penalties if not enough people of various races are hired.

I don't know what the intent behind the law is (I'm guessing it can be traced back to fighting discrimination), but if you ask me, the best way to fight prejudicial discrimination in the work place is to not take race into consideration--that's what underlies racial discrimination in the first place--the whole idea should be that one's skin color or ethnicity or whatever is as important in a job interview or on a resume as where they buy their sneakers.

Uccisore wrote:Me too. They came about for a good reason though. After slavery and desegregation, it was decided that blacks were in this slump were nobody would hire them for good jobs because they didn't have a good education, and they didn't have good educations because they were poor from not having good jobs, etc. So it was decided that we would temporarily (for like one generation) take legal measures to get tons of blacks in schools and professional positions to get them up to a level playing field. <-- This is somewhat of a different intent than what I guessed at above (I think my point still stands though). Here we are, 50 years later, the laws still in place and no sign of it having accomplished squat. You guys have it too, by the way, under the term Employment Equity. I'm glad you think it's 'way out there' leftist, but in terms of how many leftists seem to support it and the mainstream politicians that advocate it, it's really not far left in demographic terms...unless most leftists are far leftists.

Well, I can see why leftists anger you so much, Ucci.

Uccisore wrote:That strays very close to hate speech.

"I hate niggers" <-- There, let's see the authorities crack down me now. (actually, that'd be you, Ucci)

Uccisore wrote:You have to ask yourself, if there was such a difference, would it be legal to teach about it in Canadian schools? I'm seriously asking. And just to remind you I'm not picking on Canada- such a difference wouldn't be taught in American schools either, because the leftist hegemony doesn't want something like that to be true.

You know, I once worked with a girl who had a degree in sociology. She was a tad bit angry (let's just say) at men (I felt sorry for the poor girl though--she had a boyfriend who knocked her up and left her to raise the kid all by herself... so you can imagine she'd have this gripe with men). When I asked her what her sociology education taught her about what the differences between the preferences, skills, personalities, etc. of each sex were based on--genetics or culture--she said "cultue". When I asked her what she believed personally, she said "Oh, it's culture. No genetics."

Now I've got a degree in psychology, and I can remember learning in the psych 101 the number one principle of the nature/nature debate: it's always going to be a mix of genetics and culture, sometimes more on the side of genetics, sometimes more on the side of culture, but never one without the other. It's such a basic principle that it should almost be common sense to any educated person who thinks it over rationally--especially when it comes to the sexes as the physical differences between our bodies are so much greater than just skin color.

Uccisore wrote:I'm a little confused on that. The headline makes it sound like the law is gone, but if you read a little further down, it makes it sound like all the same stuff is illegal, they just take you to an actual court instead of a scary-sounding Human Rights Tribunal.

Yeah, the title's a bit of a hyperbole (to say the least); I thought it was interesting anyway because it seems to be confirming something you said:

Uccisore wrote:I know that a big part of the law that was resulting people being drug into court for twitter comments and such was recently overturned, so maybe I'm wrong now, you'll have to tell me.
My thoughts | My art | My music | My poetry

In fact, the idea that there's more differences between groups than there is between individuals is actually the fundamental racist idea.
- Jordan Peterson

Here's a good rule of thumb for politics--attribute everything to stupidity unless you can prove malice.
- Ben Shapiro

right outta high school i tried to get a job as a proctologist but i couldn't find an opening.
- promethean75

Ahh... gib, zombie universes are so last year! I’m doing hyper dimensional mirror realities now.
- Ecmandu

gib
resident exorcist

Posts: 9010
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
Location: in your mom

Re: Reforming Democracy

@gib and Uccisore: Limited speech is a good example of so many other things. While we must have some limited speech, because yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded room or spilling state secrets is a bad thing. To cut off speech that anyone finds offensive, is tyranny. Particularly at a federal level, because less connection between the action and the punishers exist. Your mother, an authority backed up by force, should "smack you on the back of the head" for cursing at the wrong time. Yet, I started cursing up a storm when I slammed my finger in the door (the nail is half black now) no one would have said a thing, except maybe to make sure I was OK. The federal government should not, throw you in prison for cursing, and like jaywalking, it can only outlaw hate speech, it has no ability to properly adjudicate it. The ability to adjust to small circumstances is something the government can't do.

This is why Socialism and Communism fail. They both rely on the ability of the federal government to make those trillions of small decisions, that every person does in their own lives.
“Give a man a fish and he will ask for tartar sauce and French fries! Moreover, some politician who wants his vote will declare all these things to be among his ‘basic rights’” – An old saying rewritten by a follower of Thomas Sowell

"It's true that the bastards would win. But we shouldn't shut down a system just because the bastards win. A good system should be like a hamster wheel for bastards hooked up an electric generator. A well designed system is not one that prevents bastards from winning, but one that generates a lot of positive externalities from bastards trying to beat each other. And that's exactly what markets do. Markets entice bastards, they reward bastards, and the bastards love them, but as they operate they generate a lot of good that inadvertently benefits everyone else." - Carleas

The Newest EconPop: Economics of Demolition Man

The man, Thomas Sowell: Wealth, Poverty and Politics

Sowell's Writing

Eric_The_Pipe
Thinker

Posts: 736
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 12:06 pm

Re: Reforming Democracy

Eric_The_Pipe wrote:Yes, like buying a car, and being told, if it goes above 50 it explodes, is a Con... Cars only reach the point of efficiency when they go above 50. So, sure, I'll accept that it is a con, but then you have to explain why we need socialism, if the only thing it can do is not be efficient enough to help everyone...

Thanks for conceding that point. Like I said, I'm not trying to prove that we need socialism (not at this point), I'm trying to understand why even a little bit of it has the effect of turning that con into a negative net balance (I mean, you have to balance it out against the pros before you can say anything about the net balance). Here's how I think of it, and how I believe most liberals (or just non-economists) think of it:

before and after socialization.jpg (63.12 KiB) Viewed 1726 times

This is how socialism is supposed to work in theory anyway. That blue wedge represents the taxes one pays on income (plus goods and services if you're living in Canada). What the government is supposed to do in a socialist system is take that blue wedge and rotate it 180 so that the thick end gets redistributed to the poor and the pointy end gets redistributed to the rich, as in the "after" graph (of course, no money actually gets redistributed to the rich, but you get what I mean). The effect is a bit more of a flattened curve--everyone's closer to equal.

That's how it's supposed to work.

But what you're saying is that it actually works like this:

free market socialized.jpg (44.46 KiB) Viewed 1726 times

Everything goes down. We all get poorer.

What this seems to suggest is that even if the government imposes a tax rate of (say) 0.001% and gives the proceeds to even just one homeless shelter, the entire economy takes a hit and even the homeless end up worse off.

Now I know you said the government is exceptionally inefficient at reallocating resources appropriately, but I have to believe that some of our tax dollars do end up going to those who, in a socialist system, are deemed to require it. So I'm guessing the reality is probably something more like a mix of the two graphs above:

mixed market.jpg (48.94 KiB) Viewed 1726 times

So while the economy as a whole does take a hit, the poor and needy do still get something. The curve flattens out and falls at the same time... but that means there's the possibility that maybe the poor end of the curve gets raised at a faster rate than it falls, in which case the net effect for the poor is to enjoy at least a little bit of an improvement in their standards of living. I would think this possibility is there when we implement a little bit of socialism--obviously a system like full-on communism, for example, would have a curve falling too fast for any flattening to raise the poor up by any measure--but if socialism were implemented in such a way as to reduce the rate at which the curve falls, is it at least possible--according to your knowledge, Eric--that the rate at which the poor are helped can out-run the effects of the hit that the economy as a whole takes? If it can, then when it does, the falling of the curve is a con only, but if it can't--if the curve always falls faster than the flattening raises the poor up--then the con is also a negative net balance, and socialism is harmful period (all this notwithstanding the rate at which charity might raise the poor up; if charity works better at raising the poor up than socialism does even in its successful moments, then I'll take charity over socialism any day).

Eric_The_Pipe wrote:I would if I could... No, I really would. I think it is a rhetorical flourish added on because it sounds good. All of the preamble stuff is... These were not set down as laws, the were set down to start off a writing. The laws were set down after that, these are just the intentions meant by those laws.

I see. So we should really look at the laws in the Constitution.

Eric_The_Pipe wrote:
gib wrote:
Eric_The_Pipe wrote:I am saying that we must rely on government for the things government can do, without fucking up too badly. If we relying on them for anything that they can really screw up, people are much worse off. Roads are not exactly rocket science (which by the way is almost exclusively private market now), yet they still consistently have trouble with the application... Are these the people you want to be in charge of your health? Think of the recent ruling by the Supreme Court, on birth control. It took, probably, millions of dollars for it to reach the Court in the first place, that is not including all of the people that were put on hold while waiting for a ruling, just to find out, that the employer doesn't have to pay for it... But, the same people that want it, can instead pay for it themselves. We spend millions, for something that less than 10 years ago, is exactly what was happening anyway... And every time someone has a problem, we must go through that process, while hoping it's not a serious issue and someone dies, so that the government can be in charge. It is inefficient at best.
I think the bold text is the right way to say what (I think) you're trying to say. It might need further refining, but I'd stick with that for now. This is basically the core of the conservative's philosophy if I'm not mistaken, correct? I think it's what you and Ucci were trying to get across earlier in this thread. You (or was it Ucci) said the Constitution was a kind of blue print of the government's function. So the kinds of social services that would be "necessary" for the government to do would be those it was charged with doing in the original draft (i.e. the Constitution).

Sure.

gib wrote:Now, Liz tried starting with this premise in one of her arguments:
Lizbethrose wrote:So, one preliminary conclusion is we all want what is best. I asked myself if that had been put into words in the US, and of course, it had--in the Preamble to our constitution. We know that government is needed in a society as large as ours and we outlined what we wanted that government to do for us in the Preamble: To form a union, establish Justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure liberty for ourselves and our posterity.

We have our union of 50 states that started with 13. We're a democratic republic; our economic system is Capitalism. Our Courts, based on the rule of law and precedence, establish justice; we have police and fire departments to help with our tranquility; we have a huge military to defend us and, supposedly, keep our liberty secure. How do we promote the general welfare?

...to which you said "practice".

I can understand what you mean by that now: that individuals must take on the yoke of promoting the general welfare through charitable acts out of their own free choice.

Well, that and I'm a horrible smart ass.

gib wrote:But then it's not the government doing that, is it?

I'd prefer no.

gib wrote:I understand that you think this would be a good thing, but does it mean striking this clause from the preamble?

I would if I could... No, I really would. I think it is a rhetorical flourish added on because it sounds good. All of the preamble stuff is... These were not set down as laws, the were set down to start off a writing. The laws were set down after that, these are just the intentions meant by those laws.

gib wrote:And if so, why not every other clause in the Preamble?

Rhetorical flourish is not a justification to take away freedoms.

gib wrote: Establishing justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense... these are all things which, unless I'm misunderstanding, you say should be privatized. That doesn't sound like a return to the original draft.

No, I want the "common defense" provided for, it's called the judicial branch and the military, both outlined in the Constitution. Justice and domestic tranquility are also dealt with via the different branches of the government, as they are set out in the Constitution... Why do you think that all of them, except promoting the general welfare was not?

gib wrote:I thought about his for a while and I thought of another sense in which we could say these original functions of government might be, at first, "necessary". Imagine you picked a country and, somehow, magically, you waved your magic wand to make the government disappear. What do you think would happen? Would a free market in which fair business practices took place, and people acted philanthropically towards the poor and needy, suddenly spring up? Or would it be more akin to anarchy and lawlessness, like we saw in Iraq when you guys took down the Bath Party? <-- The latter seems more realistic to me.

It could be a lot of things, the individual society has a lot to do with what would happen... I also think that would be another thread. But my primary response is, I don't want the government all gone, I am not a Anarchist.

gib wrote:I'm just speculating here, but it seems reasonable to me to suppose that a nation that starts off in anarchy, with no law and order, eventually comes out of the chaos by way of war lords posing themselves in the place of dictator. We could even bring in Machiavelli here to remind us that it requires the strong arm of a brutal tyrant to maintain some semblance of law and order, and ultimately civility, but even Machiavelli understood this to be only a phase through which a society moves from anarchy toward republicanism.

This government was created out of that same anarchy. Humans build, they grow. There is no reason to believe that we'd turn into a mad max situation... I think that for the most part people would figure out, we don't really need the government, at least not in every aspect of our lives. And there is part of me that goes along with James at times, thinking, and this is what the government is truly afraid of people learning. But, that is hard to believe if you don't believe in conspiracies, which I don't...

gib wrote:So maybe the move into republicanism must be a smooth transition--not an over night flip--such that when it begins to emerge, and the people notice it, there must still be some remnants of the strong arm of the tyrant, some grip the government must impose on the system such that the burgeoning new republic doesn't errupt too quickly and thereby unravel itself into chaos and lawlessness.

So back 2 and a half centuries ago, when the founding fathers of your country decided to begin a new nation, fighting off the red coats, do you think they would be so daft as to start off the country with no government?

Nope, and that is why we had two, one to start with and fail, then the current one...

gib wrote:With no law and order, without some arm reaching in to make sure anarchy and chaos wouldn't be how it made its sudden debut (and just as suddenly its denouement)?

Maybe that is the sense in which it was necessary--not in that this is the prima facia model for all republican governments to follow, but in that it is necessary as a transition phase into what you are envisioning as a totally free and unbridled market place. In plain English, it's necessary at first, but only in order to fade into oblivion as free market forces slowly merge into the fore*.

Nothing is necessary, nothing is guaranteed, nothing is predestined. "We are never more than one generation away from tyranny."

Eric, I'm trying to understand in what sense you think it is "necessary" for the government to provide the basic infrustructures of society (I thought I was helping you with the above). I traced this branch that we're on back to here:

Eric_The_Pipe wrote:Socialism is a weird thing, vs Communism which is just a stupid thing. On one hand, roads, police, military, judicial system, and government in general is basically socialism, and it works just so damn well we don't have any problems with it. On the other hand transferring more aspects of our lives to the same oversight that these systems use would be bad for investments, entrepreneurship and invention. A book I finished a little bit ago (and that I need to read again), presents it as entropy (as the information theory use, not quite the chemistry use), that the best way to create solutions to problems is to allow the "chaos" of the world to have to deal with it. And that though we need a base level of solid, non entropy for it to flow around, the ultimate goal is to allow more chaos, so that the "randomness" of life can come up with the solutions. We have so many inventions that came about by accident, and even many created by design using the chaos. Tin cans were created when Napoleon offered a cash reward to any who could come up with an effective food storage system. And the world was changed by, in essence, throwing cash into the wind that is the free market. The ability to store food long term, cheap and effectively, is one of the best things for the "poor." That America has moved away from that as a primary way for even the poor to get food is a sign of our wealth, much more than an arbitrary line.

The bold texts are what lead me to believe you thought something basic, at least at the start, is necessary. Those plus these:

Eric_The_Pipe wrote:We accept a base level amount, because we have to, but less is better, because prices are transferred knowledge, individuals are better at making use of knowledge for their own lives than the government is. While we must have roads, etc, we do not need them in our medical care.

Eric_The_Pipe wrote:It is also one of the reasons we need government supported Education... Though I think having the government run the education is a mistake. This is one reason I am Conservative, not Libertarian.

Admittedly, the sarcasm of the first bold text was lost on me, and the second is a poor basis for interpreting you as saying it is necessary for government to oversee certain basic elements of society (plus you were summarizing the book), but in what way should I interpret you here? Do you not agree with my assessment above--that it is necessary for government to at least temporarily oversee certain aspects of a republic in order to get it started?

Eric_The_Pipe wrote:That is part. I think of it like a pie. (This pertains to the average standard of living too.) Progressives, and you with this question, worry about how much of a slice everyone gets. That one person may have a bigger slice than another. <-- Just to be clear, the worry for me is not that things aren't fair, it's that some people may starve. This is also why I call the poverty line arbitrary, it means what the political force behind it want it to mean. I don't care that one person has a bigger slice, I care about making the pie bigger. Works for me. If we make the pie bigger, we make it so everyone has enough. Socialism and communism is attempting to distribute the pie evenly, not understanding that by doing so the pie stays the same size and everyone suffers.

Eric_The_Pipe wrote:
gib wrote:Basically, the gist I got from these is that the price-cap on Canadian drugs means that it's cheaper for Americans to buy their drugs from Canada, which means that in order for American drug companies to compete, they too must lower their prices--essentially creating a "virtual" price-cap.

Is that right?

I'll take that as your conclusion. But, repeatedly through history economists have shown that in an open market, entrepreneurs have no control over price. If Canada is forcing a price to be lower that the production cost, than what is not getting paid. And if money is being lost, what reason do people have to invest in the production of new medicines? Charity only goes so far, and wouldn't it be smarter to rely on peoples desire to make their lives better to help everyone else.

I'm not sure I understand. If the price is lower than the production cost, as you say, I can only imagine it means Canadian drug companies are going to find cheaper ways to produce (probably at the expense of quality), but what does this have to do with "the US facing the cold"?

Eric_The_Pipe wrote:
gib wrote:The bold text was the insight I was waiting for.

So this is good. The picture your trying to paint for me is finally becoming clear. Let me see if I've got this right:

The trick to alleviating poverty and disease among the poor and needy, in a free market economy, is to allow the rich to get richer. By doing so, they bring the middle class up. When the middle class raises their standards of living (by becoming more wealthy), they have more money to give to the poor.

^^ Is this correct, Eric?

The rich getting richer is a externality. I don't care about it, though it happens when we try to get the poor less poor. If we let it go, stop fighting the "class struggle." We should be much better off.

Ok, then I take this to mean I've finally understood where you're coming from... finally!

Eric_The_Pipe wrote:I left it open on purpose to laugh at the response.

And did you have a good laugh?

Eric_The_Pipe wrote:I already acknowledge that, to a point. I find the lack of allowing everyone to vote, or slaves being 3/5th's a person <-- Who came up with that figure? to be a frustrating black eye, even while acknowledging the difference in time and society. I would make several changes, including removing any and all references to sex and skin color, and the possibility for slavery...

Awesome!
My thoughts | My art | My music | My poetry

In fact, the idea that there's more differences between groups than there is between individuals is actually the fundamental racist idea.
- Jordan Peterson

Here's a good rule of thumb for politics--attribute everything to stupidity unless you can prove malice.
- Ben Shapiro

right outta high school i tried to get a job as a proctologist but i couldn't find an opening.
- promethean75

Ahh... gib, zombie universes are so last year! I’m doing hyper dimensional mirror realities now.
- Ecmandu

gib
resident exorcist

Posts: 9010
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
Location: in your mom

Re: Reforming Democracy

gib wrote:Thanks for conceding that point. Like I said, I'm not trying to prove that we need socialism (not at this point), I'm trying to understand why even a little bit of it has the effect of turning that con into a negative net balance (I mean, you have to balance it out against the pros before you can say anything about the net balance).
I'm nothing if not supremely magnanimous... (and humble. )

gib wrote:Here's how I think of it, and how I believe most liberals (or just non-economists) think of it:

before and after socialization.jpg

This is how socialism is supposed to work in theory anyway. That blue wedge represents the taxes one pays on income (plus goods and services if you're living in Canada). What the government is supposed to do in a socialist system is take that blue wedge and rotate it 180 so that the thick end gets redistributed to the poor and the pointy end gets redistributed to the rich, as in the "after" graph (of course, no money actually gets redistributed to the rich, but you get what I mean). The effect is a bit more of a flattened curve--everyone's closer to equal.

That's how it's supposed to work.

But what you're saying is that it actually works like this:

free market socialized.jpg

Everything goes down. We all get poorer.
The biggest missing measurement would be an over time aspect. While within a small amount of time yes, you might see a small lift in the wealth of the "poor" as money is given to them, and a reduction in the wealth of the "rich." Over time, the reduction in the amount of wealth of the rich results in less investment from the "rich," which ultimately, results in a reduction in the wealth of the "poor." We cannot predict what the future holds, regardless how much Marxists tell you otherwise. We are however, great at projecting our current problems into the future. When we limit the amount of money that can be made we limit the amount of money made. Money is knowledge transfer...

gib wrote:What this seems to suggest is that even if the government imposes a tax rate of (say) 0.001% and gives the proceeds to even just one homeless shelter, the entire economy takes a hit and even the homeless end up worse off.
Yes, though few people would want such a thing. There are roads and Military to pay for.

gib wrote:Now I know you said the government is exceptionally inefficient at reallocating resources appropriately, but I have to believe that some of our tax dollars do end up going to those who, in a socialist system, are deemed to require it. So I'm guessing the reality is probably something more like a mix of the two graphs above:

mixed market.jpg
This graph is little different than the first.

gib wrote:So while the economy as a whole does take a hit, the poor and needy do still get something. The curve flattens out and falls at the same time... but that means there's the possibility that maybe the poor end of the curve gets raised at a faster rate than it falls, in which case the net effect for the poor is to enjoy at least a little bit of an improvement in their standards of living. I would think this possibility is there when we implement a little bit of socialism--obviously a system like full-on communism, for example, would have a curve falling too fast for any flattening to raise the poor up by any measure--but if socialism were implemented in such a way as to reduce the rate at which the curve falls, is it at least possible--according to your knowledge, Eric--that the rate at which the poor are helped can out-run the effects of the hit that the economy as a whole takes? If it can, then when it does, the falling of the curve is a con only, but if it can't--if the curve always falls faster than the flattening raises the poor up--then the con is also a negative net balance, and socialism is harmful period (all this notwithstanding the rate at which charity might raise the poor up; if charity works better at raising the poor up than socialism does even in its successful moments, then I'll take charity over socialism any day).
I'm sure we could crunch the numbers in such a way that this is what it shows yes. Over time though, I think it falls apart.

Though not having them over time fits well with a liberal understanding. A snap shot taken, a moment in time froze... What all liberal policies rely on...

The amount of money given, lets say it's $10... In 20 years, due to a high inflation, that is going to be largely meaningless. Meanwhile, the$10 invested in innovation, when it was worth more, would produce more, particularly 20 years in the future. So that the investment will be effectively worth $15, but the inflation would turn the$10 to $5 in its new value. Additionally, the supporters of giving the$10 dollars of someone else's money away, are going to want to give $15 now, because that is the new "poverty line." (Numbers are arbitrary, not based on actual number crunching.) gib wrote: Eric_The_Pipe wrote:I would if I could... No, I really would. I think it is a rhetorical flourish added on because it sounds good. All of the preamble stuff is... These were not set down as laws, the were set down to start off a writing. The laws were set down after that, these are just the intentions meant by those laws. I see. So we should really look at the laws in the Constitution. Rather than the preamble, yes. gib wrote: Eric_The_Pipe wrote:Nothing is necessary, nothing is guaranteed, nothing is predestined. "We are never more than one generation away from tyranny." Eric, I'm trying to understand in what sense you think it is "necessary" for the government to provide the basic infrastructures of society (I thought I was helping you with the above). I traced this branch that we're on back to here: Eric_The_Pipe wrote:Socialism is a weird thing, vs Communism which is just a stupid thing. On one hand, roads, police, military, judicial system, and government in general is basically socialism, and it works just so damn well we don't have any problems with it. On the other hand transferring more aspects of our lives to the same oversight that these systems use would be bad for investments, entrepreneurship and invention. A book I finished a little bit ago (and that I need to read again), presents it as entropy (as the information theory use, not quite the chemistry use), that the best way to create solutions to problems is to allow the "chaos" of the world to have to deal with it. And that though we need a base level of solid, non entropy for it to flow around, the ultimate goal is to allow more chaos, so that the "randomness" of life can come up with the solutions. We have so many inventions that came about by accident, and even many created by design using the chaos. Tin cans were created when Napoleon offered a cash reward to any who could come up with an effective food storage system. And the world was changed by, in essence, throwing cash into the wind that is the free market. The ability to store food long term, cheap and effectively, is one of the best things for the "poor." That America has moved away from that as a primary way for even the poor to get food is a sign of our wealth, much more than an arbitrary line. The bold texts are what lead me to believe you thought something basic, at least at the start, is necessary. Those plus these: Eric_The_Pipe wrote:We accept a base level amount, because we have to, but less is better, because prices are transferred knowledge, individuals are better at making use of knowledge for their own lives than the government is. While we must have roads, etc, we do not need them in our medical care. Eric_The_Pipe wrote:It is also one of the reasons we need government supported Education... Though I think having the government run the education is a mistake. This is one reason I am Conservative, not Libertarian. Admittedly, the sarcasm of the first bold text was lost on me, and the second is a poor basis for interpreting you as saying it is necessary for government to oversee certain basic elements of society (plus you were summarizing the book), but in what way should I interpret you here? Do you not agree with my assessment above--that it is necessary for government to at least temporarily oversee certain aspects of a republic in order to get it started? Yes, I think we need a base line, as I think of it. But, I think there needs to be a consent fight on where that line is. With many things changing as equilibrium is sought (I am pro politics, they must happen, we must fight over these things, true piece can never be reached). The problem is, we have never been temporary on any of these things. They have never been given some sort of kick start, then allowed to drop. Instead they become "rights" that people fight tooth and nail to keep going... See Affirmative Action. Further, no support has been shown that they have actually helped a single person anymore than that person allows. Instead, it is assumed, in causality style, that because people did not directly suffer, it is because of these things. Gun control has the same problem... A friend of mine once suggested that all laws, particularly welfare laws, should automatically expire after 8 years, so they must be re-voted in. I like the idea, though I don't think much would be accomplished with it. (I still feel stupid for that sarcastic comment, a good example of how our assumptions are not always other peoples assumptions.) gib wrote: Eric_The_Pipe wrote:That is part. I think of it like a pie. (This pertains to the average standard of living too.) Progressives, and you with this question, worry about how much of a slice everyone gets. That one person may have a bigger slice than another. <-- Just to be clear, the worry for me is not that things aren't fair, it's that some people may starve. Any proof that people starve? Are you maybe worrying about a non-problem? Americans, particularly the poor, have a problem with being overweight... We have so much food... A lot of the starving families are based on bad numbers. An old video showing how long they've been manipulated: gib wrote: Eric_The_Pipe wrote:This is also why I call the poverty line arbitrary, it means what the political force behind it want it to mean. I don't care that one person has a bigger slice, I care about making the pie bigger. Works for me. Eric_The_Pipe wrote:If we make the pie bigger, we make it so everyone has enough. Socialism and communism is attempting to distribute the pie evenly, not understanding that by doing so the pie stays the same size and everyone suffers. Though, it should be noted, that the poor suffer more, because they already have less. By increasing everyone's amount, even if they have less of a share, the poor gain considerably more, proportionally, than the rich. gib wrote: Eric_The_Pipe wrote: gib wrote:Basically, the gist I got from these is that the price-cap on Canadian drugs means that it's cheaper for Americans to buy their drugs from Canada, which means that in order for American drug companies to compete, they too must lower their prices--essentially creating a "virtual" price-cap. Is that right? I'll take that as your conclusion. But, repeatedly through history economists have shown that in an open market, entrepreneurs have no control over price. If Canada is forcing a price to be lower that the production cost, than what is not getting paid. And if money is being lost, what reason do people have to invest in the production of new medicines? Charity only goes so far, and wouldn't it be smarter to rely on peoples desire to make their lives better to help everyone else. I'm not sure I understand. If the price is lower than the production cost, as you say, I can only imagine it means Canadian drug companies are going to find cheaper ways to produce (probably at the expense of quality), but what does this have to do with "the US facing the cold"? Much like price floors, price ceilings do not work the way people want. When a price limit, that is the amount something can be charge for an object, the result is shortage. It's one thing economists can tell you how to do. We can cause shortages and surpluses without question. Create a shortage by limiting the amount of money that can be made, create a surplus by limiting the amount of money that can be paid. The costs to produce drugs is a hard thing to pin down, yes, it may have only cost$.50 to make that pill when looking at what the pill is made up of, but did you include all of the research that was done? Not every pill is a success, did you include all of the costs of the failures? If we only look at the make up of the pill, and say it costs $.50, then only allow the maker to charge$.55 for each one. We are refusing to pay the costs of making the pill. This results in a shortage, as no one is making money, making that pill. It is like looking at a chair, knowing that it is only $15 worth of wood, and refusing to pay the$75 that the maker has put on it, even though we have no idea the skill level of the maker or the amount of time going into the chair, or the costs of the machines used to make it, we only know the cost of the wood... If the government put a price limit on chair to \$16, the result would be no one would make good chairs.

When Canada put the price limit on medicine, so that no one gets put out in the cold (which were your words at the time), the result is that Americans paid the difference, and Americans stood out in the cold, so that Canada did not have too.

If I get nothing else across to you, this would be my choice of things. Costs do not stop happening, just because we refuse to pay them. Instead, we are saying, these things are not good places to apply resources, and no one will apply resources to them. While we may not care much when it comes to chairs, medicine is a pretty big deal, especially new medicines.

gib wrote:Ok, then I take this to mean I've finally understood where you're coming from... finally!
It took me long enough to make it clear.

gib wrote:
Eric_The_Pipe wrote:I left it open on purpose to laugh at the response.
And did you have a good laugh?
I got a minor one, I was expecting Liz or UPF to respond with exasperation, not you. (especially as it was a reply to liz...)

gib wrote:
Eric_The_Pipe wrote:I already acknowledge that, to a point. I find the lack of allowing everyone to vote, or slaves being 3/5th's a person <-- Who came up with that figure? to be a frustrating black eye, even while acknowledging the difference in time and society. I would make several changes, including removing any and all references to sex and skin color, and the possibility for slavery...

Awesome!
Interestingly, 3/5th's, though the value is arbitrary, is actually a good thing. It undermined the value to continue slavery. The people in support of slavery were reduced in the amount of pro-slavery votes that they had because of it. If they had been able to count all of the slaves as full people, they would have more political power to continue slavery. Truly, we, you and I, should want them to count for zero... At least if we wanted it to stop.

So, because they are attachments, I can not get the images to carry through. I left the names in, but people are going to have to reference your original post above.

And because the man is amazing:
“Give a man a fish and he will ask for tartar sauce and French fries! Moreover, some politician who wants his vote will declare all these things to be among his ‘basic rights’” – An old saying rewritten by a follower of Thomas Sowell

"It's true that the bastards would win. But we shouldn't shut down a system just because the bastards win. A good system should be like a hamster wheel for bastards hooked up an electric generator. A well designed system is not one that prevents bastards from winning, but one that generates a lot of positive externalities from bastards trying to beat each other. And that's exactly what markets do. Markets entice bastards, they reward bastards, and the bastards love them, but as they operate they generate a lot of good that inadvertently benefits everyone else." - Carleas

The Newest EconPop: Economics of Demolition Man

The man, Thomas Sowell: Wealth, Poverty and Politics

Sowell's Writing

Eric_The_Pipe
Thinker

Posts: 736
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 12:06 pm

Re: Reforming Democracy

gib wrote: it should be narrowed down to something like "public speech intended to reach a significant portion of the masses with the intent of arousing actions aimed at doing serious harm or of killing others [without justification?]."

Which would accurately describe any abortion rights rally, from where I'm sitting. But then, it's not conservatives trying to regulate what people are allowed to say, so my perspective on what fits the definition above doesn't matter!

Uccisore wrote:Good point, if the law really is phrase as you described it:

Yeah, should take my phrasing with a grain of salt, especially where Canada is considered.

Uccisore wrote:Well, I can see why leftists anger you so much, Ucci.

The anger comes from the political mindset, not even necessarily the ideology- at least, not ALL of the ideology. Even if short-term Affirmative Action would have been a good idea for a generation, if you know the left like I do, then you know they never had any intention of ending it after a single generation. It was destined to become what it is- a payout to ensure they get minority votes, and a way of calling people racist if they disagree.

Uccisore wrote:"I hate niggers" <-- There, let's see the authorities crack down me now. (actually, that'd be you, Ucci)

You understand you just broke the law in your country, right? I mean, I don't give a damn, just underlining the absurdity of it all.

Uccisore wrote:You know, I once worked with a girl who had a degree in sociology. She was a tad bit angry (let's just say) at men (I felt sorry for the poor girl though--she had a boyfriend who knocked her up and left her to raise the kid all by herself... so you can imagine she'd have this gripe with men). When I asked her what her sociology education taught her about what the differences between the preferences, skills, personalities, etc. of each sex were based on--genetics or culture--she said "cultue". When I asked her what she believed personally, she said "Oh, it's culture. No genetics."

I am generally wary of talking about sexual politics on here, BUT I have to say this- compare what leftists say about the role of culture in gender when talking about things like the above, and then look at what they say about transvestites, and how they have this deep-seated difference in their brain that justifies them being surgically mutilated to reflect what they think they are. As far as I can tell, leftist party-line is that sexual differences in behavior are cultural UNLESS you're queer or transgendered, then all of a sudden your behavior is genetically determined. Almost as if they're just making shit up as they go to serve some other political end.

Now I've got a degree in psychology, and I can remember learning in the psych 101 the number one principle of the nature/nature debate: it's always going to be a mix of genetics and culture, sometimes more on the side of genetics, sometimes more on the side of culture, but never one without the other.

I don't have a degree in psych, but I know that we all have to eat, and breathe and shit, and that these have enormous influence over everything else we do, and these needs aren't cultural! It's obvious to anyone living it the real world that there are serious biological differences between the genders, these are genetic too, and those biological differences would lead, one would expect, to behavior differences- it wouldn't make any sense if they didn't. I don't know if there is a direct link between genetics and behavior, but I don't see why there would HAVE to be- the fact that women can give birth and men can pee standing up is sufficient to explain a heck of a lot.

http://deepfreeze.it/ Curious about corrupt practices in video game journalism? Look no further.

Uccisore
The Legitimatizer

Posts: 13279
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2002 8:14 pm
Location: Deep in the forests of Maine

Re: Reforming Democracy

Uccisore wrote:You understand you just broke the law in your country, right?

Wouldn't be the first time. They haven't come knocking down my door yet (and you haven't banned me ). I'm extremely low on the totem pole of my society--I'm a nobody--I could do a lot and nobody would care.

Uccisore wrote:I don't have a degree in psych, but I know that we all have to eat, and breathe and shit, and that these have enormous influence over everything else we do, and these needs aren't cultural! It's obvious to anyone living it the real world that there are serious biological differences between the genders, these are genetic too, and those biological differences would lead, one would expect, to behavior differences- it wouldn't make any sense if they didn't. I don't know if there is a direct link between genetics and behavior, but I don't see why there would HAVE to be- the fact that women can give birth and men can pee standing up is sufficient to explain a heck of a lot.

Sure, and even if the brains of men and women are exactly the same, differences in our bodies can significantly influence our behavior and mental states. Estrogen is produced in the ovaries, but it can easily bind to neurons in the brain, affecting behavior or mental states.
My thoughts | My art | My music | My poetry

In fact, the idea that there's more differences between groups than there is between individuals is actually the fundamental racist idea.
- Jordan Peterson

Here's a good rule of thumb for politics--attribute everything to stupidity unless you can prove malice.
- Ben Shapiro

right outta high school i tried to get a job as a proctologist but i couldn't find an opening.
- promethean75

Ahh... gib, zombie universes are so last year! I’m doing hyper dimensional mirror realities now.
- Ecmandu

gib
resident exorcist

Posts: 9010
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
Location: in your mom

Re: Reforming Democracy

Uccisore wrote: Even if short-term Affirmative Action would have been a good idea for a generation, if you know the left like I do, then you know they never had any intention of ending it after a single generation.

Affirmative Action was a good idea for a generation, but now it's just institutionalized racism. Your anger at and constant disparagement of liberals notwithstanding, i basically agree your stance on this one.

And i don't really think "hate speech" laws make a whole lot of sense because where do you draw the line? To me, i think inciting violence should be illegal, but legally banning name-calling is kind of an overreach of the law. So i agree with you there, too.

Yet, i'm still a liberal. Go figure. You probably think i must be up to something if i'm saying these things, since i'm part of the left. Perhaps what i'm saying indicates a strategic shift in liberal conspiracy tactics - you should publish an article about it in the National Review.

Or maybe, just maybe, not all liberals agree with one another on everything. And so perhaps your intimations of a vast leftist cabal scheming to win minority votes through affirmative action programs - while at the same time robbing us of our first amendment right to shout "nigger" at black people - are all so much anger and paranoia.
i am brilliant, you are stupid. Therefore, you are wrong.
uglypeoplefucking
Philosopher

Posts: 4147
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 2:47 pm
Location: throughout

Re: Reforming Democracy

I don't have much time, so I'll try to be brief, if that's possible.

Just throwing ideas around. Eric, you said the Preamble to the Constitution is rhetorical flourish. How about some of the laws that are the Amendments? (Which aren''t all the laws by a long shot.) The XIII, XIV, and XV--the Reconstruction Amendments; the XVIII--Prohibition; the XIX--Women's Suffrage; the XXIV--barring a poll tax in Federal Elections; the XXVI--lowering the voting age to 18--don't these all have to do with promoting the general welfare?

Innovations in medicine. I don't understand exactly what you're getting at here. Could you explain, please? Also, when I was talking about invention, I was thinking of Eli Whitney or Elias Howe--inventors rather than innovators. There's innovation in drugs as I've already said, so I don't understand your gripe. And do you have any idea where research money for drugs comes from, as far as the ratio between tax money and charitable donations go?

Finally, for now, anyway, yes. America is fat. Do you know why? Is it possible that people who are fat may also be poorly nourished? Is it possible that fat people are poorly nourished or that poorly nourished people are fat because they only buy foods that put on the lbs. because it fills them up--and is inexpensive? Perhaps there should be color-coded food stamps--green ones for vegetables, yellow for fruit, white for milk/milk products and eggs, and so on. What do you think? I'm not being smart alecky here; I'm serious.

And this is for sure finally. Does preventive medicine really cost more than remedial medicine?

Liz
"Be what you would seem to be - or, if you'd like it put more simply - never imagine yourself not to be otherwise than what it might appear to others that what you were or might have been was not otherwise than what you had been would have appeared to them to be otherwise."
— Lewis Carroll
lizbethrose
Philosopher

Posts: 3556
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2011 6:55 am
Location: Pacific Northwest

Re: Reforming Democracy

Gib, looks like that present line of conversation ran its course. Now what?

http://deepfreeze.it/ Curious about corrupt practices in video game journalism? Look no further.

Uccisore
The Legitimatizer

Posts: 13279
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2002 8:14 pm
Location: Deep in the forests of Maine

Re: Reforming Democracy

uglypeoplefucking wrote:Or maybe, just maybe, not all liberals agree with one another on everything. And so perhaps your intimations of a vast leftist cabal scheming to win minority votes through affirmative action programs - while at the same time robbing us of our first amendment right to shout "nigger" at black people - are all so much anger and paranoia.

Yeah dude, clearly since you, a liberal, aren't in favor of affirmative action, that demonstrates that the liberals that keep it in place aren't doing it to manipulate the minority vote. What was I thinking. Clearly they are in favor of institutionalized racism for the good of all of us! Hate crime legislation is the same way. I'm glad you aren't in favor of it, but that doesn't change the fact that those that are, are Marxists pushing for authoritarian control over what politcal views are allowed to be expressed.

http://deepfreeze.it/ Curious about corrupt practices in video game journalism? Look no further.

Uccisore
The Legitimatizer

Posts: 13279
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2002 8:14 pm
Location: Deep in the forests of Maine

Re: Reforming Democracy

lizbethrose wrote:Finally, for now, anyway, yes. America is fat. Do you know why? Is it possible that people who are fat may also be poorly nourished? Is it possible that fat people are poorly nourished or that poorly nourished people are fat because they only buy foods that put on the lbs. because it fills them up--and is inexpensive? Perhaps there should be color-coded food stamps--green ones for vegetables, yellow for fruit, white for milk/milk products and eggs, and so on. What do you think? I'm not being smart alecky here; I'm serious.

There's a documentary, Food Inc, and I remember one of the last sections of the film covers this Hispanic family of 5 (I think) and how they are all fat because they are poor. It talks about how since they can't afford real food, they are stuck going to Burger King and Wendy's every day- in other words, exactly what you're talking about.

Of course, the punchline is, the documentary was obviously made by people that have absolutely no perspective on poverty. Anybody who's actually BEEN poor knows that fast food and junk food are luxuries- you simply can't afford to eat that way if you're actually poor. Peanut butter sandwhiches, Mac & Cheese, and yes, fruits and vegetables* have always been and probably always will be cheaper than cake and Doritos and Burger King. Hell, you could have steak every night for the price of Burger King if only you are willing to do your own cooking.
I think the parts of the world that have actual poor populations would laugh at the idea that it costs more to be skinny.

* - Assuming, of course, you haven't been hoodwinked into buying only organic. If anything screws up the poor person's diet, it's current nutrition fads like that.

http://deepfreeze.it/ Curious about corrupt practices in video game journalism? Look no further.

Uccisore
The Legitimatizer

Posts: 13279
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2002 8:14 pm
Location: Deep in the forests of Maine

Re: Reforming Democracy

lizbethrose wrote:I don't have much time, so I'll try to be brief, if that's possible.

Just throwing ideas around. Eric, you said the Preamble to the Constitution is rhetorical flourish. How about some of the laws that are the Amendments?
They are not rhetorical flourish..

lizbethrose wrote:(Which aren''t all the laws by a long shot.) The XIII, XIV, and XV--the Reconstruction Amendments; the XVIII--Prohibition; the XIX--Women's Suffrage; the XXIV--barring a poll tax in Federal Elections; the XXVI--lowering the voting age to 18--don't these all have to do with promoting the general welfare?
It doesn't matter if they do. They are laws, Women's suffrage "allows" women to vote. That they may "promote the general welfare" is irrelevant.

For example, Lowering the voting age to 18 doesn't promote anyone's welfare. It is just a grab at voters by liberals, whose ideology relies on inexperience to believe. 18 year olds are full of inexperience, and vote largely liberal.

lizbethrose wrote:Innovations in medicine. I don't understand exactly what you're getting at here. Could you explain, please?
New drugs, that do things like give us longer boners, and fix our heart problems. The innovation in medicines have lifted the lifespan of the average human years beyond it once was, creating so many more problems, social security is an example of that. When Social Security was created the age one received it at was after the average life span. If we did it that way now, people wouldn't get anything until their 80's.

lizbethrose wrote:Also, when I was talking about invention, I was thinking of Eli Whitney or Elias Howe--inventors rather than innovators. There's innovation in drugs as I've already said, so I don't understand your gripe.
Why do people innovate the drugs? Usually it's to make money.

lizbethrose wrote:And do you have any idea where research money for drugs comes from, as far as the ratio between tax money and charitable donations go?
Does it matter? Should I care?

lizbethrose wrote:Finally, for now, anyway, yes. America is fat. Do you know why? Is it possible that people who are fat may also be poorly nourished? Is it possible that fat people are poorly nourished or that poorly nourished people are fat because they only buy foods that put on the lbs. because it fills them up--and is inexpensive? Perhaps there should be color-coded food stamps--green ones for vegetables, yellow for fruit, white for milk/milk products and eggs, and so on. What do you think? I'm not being smart alecky here; I'm serious.
And here is where the tyranny and arrogance comes in. So, not only do they not have enough of what you think they should have, they don't use what they are given the way you want them too. Do you just want to pass a law, disallowing anyone to make decisions for themselves, that you come in and make it for them, like a shitty, tiger parent? Helicoptering over every little thing they do?

When you treat people like children you are putting yourself in a position of power. And While you may have good intentions, there is no guarantee the next person is going to... And you've just given a monster the power to destroy peoples lives. Further, how do you know what is right and wrong for all the individuals out there? The truth is, you don't. And the most you can hope for is the "experts" you put in charge don't fuck things up completely, in counter to all the evidence from all past experiences of doing exactly that.

lizbethrose wrote:And this is for sure finally. Does preventive medicine really cost more than remedial medicine?
Don't know how it is relevant?

lizbethrose wrote:Liz
“Give a man a fish and he will ask for tartar sauce and French fries! Moreover, some politician who wants his vote will declare all these things to be among his ‘basic rights’” – An old saying rewritten by a follower of Thomas Sowell

"It's true that the bastards would win. But we shouldn't shut down a system just because the bastards win. A good system should be like a hamster wheel for bastards hooked up an electric generator. A well designed system is not one that prevents bastards from winning, but one that generates a lot of positive externalities from bastards trying to beat each other. And that's exactly what markets do. Markets entice bastards, they reward bastards, and the bastards love them, but as they operate they generate a lot of good that inadvertently benefits everyone else." - Carleas

The Newest EconPop: Economics of Demolition Man

The man, Thomas Sowell: Wealth, Poverty and Politics

Sowell's Writing

Eric_The_Pipe
Thinker

Posts: 736
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 12:06 pm

Re: Reforming Democracy

Uccisore wrote:Yeah dude, clearly since you, a liberal, aren't in favor of affirmative action, that demonstrates that the liberals that keep it in place aren't doing it to manipulate the minority vote. What was I thinking. Clearly they are in favor of institutionalized racism for the good of all of us! Hate crime legislation is the same way. I'm glad you aren't in favor of it, but that doesn't change the fact that those that are, are Marxists pushing for authoritarian control over what politcal views are allowed to be expressed.

i think the preponderance of evidence indicates that most advocates of affirmative action and hate crime legislation are in fact well-intentioned.
i am brilliant, you are stupid. Therefore, you are wrong.
uglypeoplefucking
Philosopher

Posts: 4147
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 2:47 pm
Location: throughout

PreviousNext