You are a dangerous person, ucci, because you are so mistaken. But when you publish what I’ve underlined in your quote to gib, you become a very dangerous person, indeed. Margaret Sanger was not a Marxist; she was not a eugenicist; and the organization she started, now called Planned Parenthood was not started as a “socialist racial hygiene organization.” Margaret Sanger was a nurse working in the poor areas of NYC at a time when it was against Federal Law to even mention the word ‘contraception’ in public or to distribute “obscene” literature or implements through the mail. (Comstock Act of 1873) Margaret was one of eleven children–out of her mother’s 18 pregnancies. Her mother died at a fairly young age. Sanger, as a nurse, was often called on to care for women suffering from botched abortions, either ‘back street’ or self-induced. She saw a lot of women die, as a result. She started to teach women how their bodies functioned and how they got pregnant and her audiences grew to include ‘upper-class’ women. She taught women that they had the right, if not the imperative, to deny their husbands ‘marital right’ because it so often resulted in an unwanted pregnancy, or death.
It’s hard to picture what life was like for women in the first couple of decades in the 1900s. Not even doctors were allowed to discuss birth control, a phrase Sanger coined, with their female patients–it was obscene. Women didn’t know how their bodies worked; they were embarrassed to talk about ‘anything like that.’ They had no way to protect themselves, which led to abortions (which have been around since time began, it seems); in China, it led to infanticide, which still goes on to this day. (The Rivers Run Black, Elizabeth C. Economy, 2004) I’m sure a lot of other countries are also guilty. Oh, btw, the book is about pollution in Chinese rivers; a part of that pollution is the corpses of female new borns, some still wearing their hospital ‘bracelets.’
What you say causes the ‘break-up of the family’ isn’t abortion, birth control, feminism, or a lack of a strong religious background. In my mind, a part of it is and economy that forces women to work outside the home and a part of it is unwanted pregnancies. But they’re only parts of a very interwoven, complex, whole.
My apologies, dear sir. I thought my rant was over when I pm’d gib earlier, but I guess it wasn’t. Please, please, I’ve asked you this repeatedly, tell us where you get your ‘information!’ You don’t need to cite anything other than direct quotes, I know, but tell us, if you can, how you arrived at your conclusions. At least, qualify what you say. When you make statements such as the one above–that are clearly erroneous and can be shown to be so–tell us, please, how you, as an intelligent person who, I hope, is able to think, came to your ideas.
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?
The reason the pragmatists took on the name, pragmatist is because they look at themselves as pragmatists. But also, so that, disagree with them is being against pragmatism… (Parks & Recreation has a great bit on this about a cult calling themselves the rationalists, because then, disagreeing with them is disagreeing with being rational…)
Freedom to buy guns, without needing to pass a background check. Freedom to spend money on health insurance as I see fit, rather than being restricted to what the government sees fit. Freedom to not pay exorbitant taxes, that are used for policies I don’t agree with. I could go on…
But, the problem is stated in your wording, “specific privileges.” The government does not grant privileges, we grant the government privileges, it owes us fealty, not the other way around.
Resources are taken, which is change. I don’t have the choice to start a business without filling out a bunch of paper work and seeking permission first… There are more, but again, this is a reversal in understanding. See above. Though, I don’t care much about “how (my) future (c)ould be different” I care about dealing with what is… I’m pragmatic that way.
I hope it did.
Side note, all the things Ucci posted on Margaret Sanger, I’ve heard as well. More, I’ve heard what you’ve posted, and that it is the cleaned up, PC version of her life. A fiction created by Planned Parenthood… She has writings that expose who she is…
I’m not sure I’d call it expertise, more just an unhealthy obsession with wanting to understand (and be right.) But thank you.
It doesn’t degrade all the time, which is part of the problem, it just limits growth. It is an attempt to stop the ups and downs of the market so they work in a predictable manner, as a result there is no dynamic entropy to help create. The soviet union failed because it could not keep up with the US, I imagine, if they had no one they were competing against, it might still exist. Socialism is putting walls around your space so no outsiders can get in…
To be fair, the area’s with less state money involved are often just dirt roads… It’s a scottish thing.
I talked to a guy working on his phd in economics this weekend (it was the most interesting conversation I had all weekend, and it ended with both of us throwing our hands up at the lack of people that want to talk about economics). He pointed out something, fashion, as in the clothes and such, is one of the most innovative fields out there, changing every year. People bring in new ideas every chance they get and it is a billion dollar industry, with houses that go back thousands of years. It is also a completely unprotected field (unlike medicine). So, we might see even more innovation in the medical industry, using that as an example, if we removed all traces of protection from it… Fashion also has a large amount of failures year to year, as an aspect of chasing down every “new” idea, so we might also see a lot more death…
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.
Medical care is different than health insurance. Not having government supplied medical care is, also, not the same as not having medical care… Someone wanting government medical care must prove that it is better than non government supplied medical care. That is what I ask for, because you are starting with, “socialism is better, Eric, you must prove it is not.” And you have not made your case. That you now have socialized medical care, does not mean that it is some sort of right, that it was predestined or that it is incontrovertibly better. Only that, it is something you have grown to take for granted… Like a slave and slavery… (Does that sound too crazy an analogy?)
He is amazing. I love the video because it emphasizes so many aspects of being wrong by relying on third party “experts” vs the people on the ground having to actually deal with what is going on… I love his humility… I follow him on facebook, and it is equally amazing.
snort I would base it on what I had to do, looking at the value exchange…
It is hard to know what is going to raise the standard of living. But, it is the best way to raise how “badly” even the poor people live. It cannot be done by forcing a set level as a “living wage” because that wage does not guarantee anything about how that wage is spent. It is why I call the living wage a arbitrary number, it is based on preconceived notions that have little to do with reality. We cannot save everyone, but we can make it easier for as many people as possible to live well. Having a living wage does not create this, instead it brings up the costs to exist.
Be glad your Canadian then, because they often reap the positive results of the US facing the cold.
Yes, doctors give time all the time. Volunteering in the US is borderline required socially, especially for Conservatives (who do look down on you if you do not, you either need help, or you are giving help)…
I was only proving that people give to charity… That is all you asked for.
It is significantly reduced in socialism. Because it is “taken care of by the government.” And because everyone gets “their share” and no more is allowed. (This is more prevalent in Communism, but it still happens to a degree in socialism. People can only give so much, because the government does not allow them to have more.)
Ask for more if it does not make sense.
Best place to get seriously sick, is in the US, we have way better survival rates than any other country. WAY better than Canada. Canada is great for small sicknesses though.
Your intelligence is being insulted, they are trying to make a “fast one” relying on their supposed authority, sadly, much like newspapers, the authority was gained in a time when they were not run by liberals, and now the liberals have kicked out any dissenters and are ruining the built up authority.
Atlas is reporting most on the peer reviews that tear it apart as a bad study. He has references…
I do agree. Liberals have turned politics into a religion… One of the things I like most about the few Conservatives I know, they have a religion already and don’t need another one.
The problem in this case is that they set it up to collect the data they wanted. I want to know how the study was run as much as the results, and don’t usually accept something until I know.
Find out how the data was collected. If it is a questionare, find out the questions… It is really weird the way a question can be asked that fucks up the data… For example: Which person do you wish to vote for, the horrible Mr. X, or the fantastic Miss Y…
That is obviously a absurd extreme take, but I swear, it comes damn close…
Then you must understand what is the sample, a data collection on the internet via a survey, is a great example of something with a bias. It is bias against people that don’t use the internet, it is also bias against people unwilling to take surveys on the internet. So, the sample is very much, people willing to take surveys on the internet… Which says some things about the people, such as, a more extrovert personality, wealth enough to have internet and a computer casually (which is more and more people, thanks to innovation), and possibly, board… Cuz why else, except money, would someone take a survey?
So in conclusion, Boobies are great. Everyone loves them (even gay guys. Yes, I’ve asked.)
I have a couple thoughts on re-reading this, while replying to gib:
I would like to apologize to you UPF. This could be taken as me saying you are not reasonable… in a not thoughtful or not intelligent sort of way… Because it is basically what it says.
This was not my intent. I enjoy talking to you and do not want to discourage you from responding to anything I say. I meant it as, I do not think we will agree, regardless of how much we argue. It was the wrong word and I am sorry for that.
I am sorry that I called you unreasonable, even if only indirectly. It was not meant as a backhanded insult.
I will try to not do this, though I can only try in this instance, English is no love of mine and I often fuck up the stupid hogpog of a language.
Well, as usual, I can’t keep up with this thread. Let me at least post half of my reply.
First, to Moreno…
I think that last line hits closer to home. Another way of wording the concept is “zealous moderate”–someone who really, really, really believes in some aspects of either the right or left but thinks that going to either extreme is absolutely the worst thing you could do.
If we could graph right-wing stances and left-wing stances on the horizontal axis, and let’s call it “political prowess” on the vertical axis, I predict the curve would be an m shape with smooth curves like a sine wave. That is, neither of the extremes would be very good at climbing to the top of the political echelon (such as becoming president) but neither would someone squarely in the middle. The extremes might be too “crazy” to function properly in such an important and high-stress position (although “crazy” is probably a terrible word to use but I think it gets the gist across). But someone in the exact middle would probably be too un-opinionated or too unfamiliar with the subject to know what to do if put in such a position. So the (highly intelligent and skillful) moderates are the one’s most likely to become our political leaders (though they depend highly on the influence of the extremes in order to get there).
Now Margaret Sanger…
Here’s what the wikipedia article on Margaret Sanger has to say:
These were the snippets I found most relevant. So essentially, Sanger was actively involved in leftist politics, and she did espouse eugenics policies, but other than that, everything Liz said was true. Ucci was right also when he said “You didn’t bring it up, but abortion was promoted by leftists eugenicists looking for a way to reduce the poor, non-white population. Yes, Planned Parenthood started as a socialist racial hygeine organization,” but the article clearly states that Sanger’s birth control was peddled as a safer, more ethical, alternative to abortions.
A brief comment on guns…
This part alarms me. I realize you were just answering Liz’s question. And it is an accurate answer (indeed, freedom to buy guns without needing a pass or a background check would be a privilege one could enjoy given “a totally conservative atmosphere in a totally free-market society”–but you do realize, don’t you, that you’d essentially be allowing any mentally unstable psychopath free access to guns whenever he wanted, right?
Now, I anticipate your response to this would probably be something along the lines of “hey, I don’t mind the gun retailers demanding a pass or background check, and in a virtuous conservative market, such retailers would be responsible and therefore would demand it, so long as it’s not the government making them demand it.” But here’s where I have to re-emphasize a point I made a long time ago in this thread:
Now, I’d like to reiterate this point (addressing everyone here, not just Eric) but at the opposite extreme–that is, having a lot of faith in what you think should happen (rationally, logically) according to your philosophical model, and what will happen if put into effect. It may feel to us as though what we argue for in these debates is well grounded and thoroughly reasoned out, but we each ought to ask ourselves: why are we arguing thus? Is it because we really think it’s true, or is it because we want to win the argument? If it happens that the latter is more true than the former, it means we aren’t taking the issue as seriously as perhaps we ought to. Now this is fine when it comes to most armchair philosophical discussions, but when the stakes are human lives and human welfare, you’d better make damn sure you’re right before you put the argument forward.
Not that any of you are going to take these arguments and go into politics with them (I don’t think), or put them into practice in any other way, but we should remember how easy it can be to bring one’s self to believe that “everything will turn out fine, as long as things work out according to how I theorize it will”. What if you’re wrong? What if removing the requirement for a background check or a pass only results in more lives being lost in heinous crimes. Do not count these losses in numbers. Each one is a human life, not a statistic. It can give you all the comfort in the world “proving” to your adversary that the rational justifications behind your position are air-tight and that you’ve blown them out of the water with your sharp cogent reasoning, but don’t mistake that good feeling with knowing that you’re right.
And again, I don’t think Eric was necessary making an argument for unrestricted gun purchasing–he was just answering Liz’s question (correctly)–but it does alarm me not to know whether conservatives or liberals make this distinction in their minds–the distinction between taking the matter seriously and arguing just to win a debate.
Eric, I’ll respond to your latest post at another time.
And your attempt to anticipate would be wasted, I don’t mind parts of the background check. I was just answering her question, and watching something on guns at the same time, so it was the first thing that popped into my head.
Also, I think what I’ve always thought, people that’ll break the law and kill someone with a gun, isn’t going to be too worried about breaking the law to get a gun, to go illegally kill someone… Making it more difficult to get gun, tends to only make it more difficult for people that are going to obey the law… The 5 day waiting period doesn’t really bother me either… But, probably, I’d take it out of being a federal law and allow the states to decide on the laws within their own state… For the most part…
Okay, but that’s a con for socialism, not a net balance. The confusion between the two is a common fallacy made by many–you can list out the pros and cons of a system (or a philosophy, or a methodology, or just about anything) but we sometimes identify certain cons and mistake them for conclusive evidence that the system (or philosophy, or methodology) is an all-out failure (<-- I’m calling this a “net balance”). Insulin is a life saving treatment for diabetes… but the needle can hurt a little, therefore insulin is bad. Insofar as you’re pointing out a con of socialism, I agree with you, but I don’t think that’s sufficient for concluding that socialism is bad across the board (though it might be bad in 90% of its applications).
You mean with more fed money?.. and the Scots are to blame?
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).
Now, Liz tried starting with this premise in one of her arguments:
…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.
But then it’s not the government doing that, is it? I understand that you think this would be a good thing, but does it mean striking this clause from the preamble? And if so, why not every other clause in the Preamble? 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.
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.
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.
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? 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*.
No, that is not what I’m starting with. I explained later that…
What I’m really asking is: how do the worst off in a society become better by taking away socialism, and I mean for this to be taken as a question, not a statement, for which there is nothing for me to prove. By this point, however, I think I got your answer: the more you remove socialism from the market, the more individuals are able to give, on their own initiative, to the poor. ← Is that your answer?
Yes, of course it does! I really don’t feel like a slave. I think there’s some forms of slavery you just don’t grow accustomed to, and the socialism of Canada isn’t one of them. Do I take it for granted? Of course! Is it slavery? No, that’s a bad analogy. Again, at this point, I don’t think you understood my position vis-a-vis my question above: how do the worst off in a society become better by taking away socialism?
Because the middle class will be more able to give to the poor. Is that right?
Including as many of the poor that the socialists and liberals are (allegedly) concerned about, correct?
What do you mean by this? You mentioned earlier that because of the price-cap on Canadian drugs, the US is forced to put its own cap on its drugs, stifling innovation and creativity. I didn’t understand this well enough, so I googled some stuff. I’m not very good at googling, but I found these two sites that seem to be saying the same thing:
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?
Well, Eric, this is one of those moments when I’m happy to be wrong.
But let me dug a little deeper: is this social custom dependent on conservative attitudes? On Christianity? I’d like to think this humanitarian impulse comes out of human nature itself in the free market that you’re envisioning. Do you think it does?
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?
Now, at this point, I think I agree with a few of the reactionaries to the studies we went over a few posts ago. These guys here:
The first one in particular states: “The bottom line, according to the MIT study, was that ‘liberals are no more or less generous than conservatives once we adjust for differences in church attendance and income.’”
This addresses my concern about how well a measure donations towards religious organizations is of meeting the needs of the poor and needy. It is, at best, an indirect measure, if a measure at all (i.e. if it actually gets to the poor and needy). On the other hand, it could count as an answer to my question above: is this display of humanitarian spirit dependent on conservatism and Christianity, or does it come out of something deep within human nature herself? If conservatives and liberals give equally, then maybe this is suggestive of the goodness of mankind overall (please don’t attack this, Eric, it supports your more general position).
That’s great! And I knew that! Of course I did. It was my own suggestion. I made it earlier in this thread!
Thanks. That’s a good suggestion as well.
Consulting my own personal experiences, I concur.
Okay, well, that gives me partial relief. It says that you understand the importance of taking baby steps. Overturning the order of things overnight can be a disaster no matter how good your intentions or how cock sure you are that you’re right (I’ve always thought of it as amazing that you guys have 50 states with which to conduct social and political experiments–not that you’d use any state as a guinea pig, but it’s like an observational science (as opposed to an experimental one), like astronomy: you just observe and wait for interesting things to happen–you in the States have got such an opportunity to learn a hell of a lot about the nature of politics and society).
I’m sorry if I offended by suggesting that you wouldn’t care if the murder rate went up as a result of lifting all background checks and passes. I was only trying to point out what I thought was a very important mental exercise that we all ought to practice every now and then: distinguish between why you argue the points you argue–because you can vouch that you are right or just to win the argument. When people make claims and argue for positions that, if implemented, could risk human lives, I worry. It brings peace of mind to know when they are aware of that distinction and understand its importance.
But if you accept this image, you would still have to reconcile the fact that this vision is not merely a returning to the original Constitution but a surpassing of it all together.
I'm not going to argue with you because there's no point. I know reality, you would too if you wanted to, and anybody who is reading this conversation can verify which one of us is telling the truth about Sanger for themselves with their internet connection. She was a racist and a eugenicist, and saw contraception as a vital key to promoting racial purity- along with the forced sterilization of those with low IQ.
About the only thing I got wrong about Sanger- and you're going to love the irony here- is that in fact she was pro life and thought it was immoral to end a pregnancy after conception. Planned Parenthood waited until immediately after her death to take the next step and actually start killing unwanted fetuses. So go ahead and defend that pro-life racist eugenicist all you want, but I don't know what it is you have in common with her that you think is worth defending.
I'm not getting in a quote war with you about common sense matters that you could verify for yourself in 30 seconds, that aren't even controversial. I've played this game before, and we both know you'll just reject any source that isn't lefty enough for you; that's how the game is played when you're on the wrong side of the argument. Anybody interested in Margaret Sanger is encouraged to study up on her independently of what I say, or what you say, and I think we both know the conclusion they will come to.
If it works anything like conservatism re: republicans, no. Being a politician involves compromising ideals to get popular approval, so these types aren’t going to be the political upper crust. They are going to be the academic upper crust. The Master-minds behind the Democratic party are those that have to decide how much Marxism to adopt, and how fast.
I would say that they have to behave in a moderate-left fashion in order to win elections, but that in reality they are a mix of all of the above.
I don't know enough about the man to say. What I will speculate is that he's a far-left type who is shrewd enough about Marxism to know that you can't go too far down that path and get votes. Furthermore, he cares enough about the existence of the United States that when he came into power and actually became privy to the real state of world affairs, he was forced to change his outlook, or at least his practice. If you compare what he said as a Senator to what he's done as a President, he has become much more hawkish. So either a lot of what he said on the campaign trail was bullshit, or he learned something when he got in the Big Chair that made him re-assess.
My overall impression of him is that he's out of his element. He's good a speaking, good at campaigning, but doesn't really know what to [i]do[/i] when his rhetorical points don't translate very well into practice. In other words, he's a leftist version of what I'd be like if I was a president.
I'd be an example of that in theory, if I went on to grad school in Poli-Sci.
Right. So in my experience, I agree with Marx’s phrasing of problems to an extent; man’s alienation from his labor really is a cause of a lot of suffering. I think his mistakes were twofold- insisting on a materialistic understanding of the human condition, and mimicking Feuerbach’s approach to philosophy, which is basically to engage in speculative anthropology and call it philosophy.
Well, no. What we would expect is that these people would be experts in [i]political theory[/i] and so would be as well versed in Marxism as they are in libertarianism, conservativism and so on. IN other words, learning about Marx wouldn't necessarily be pushing them to the left, because they'd also be learning the criticisms of and alternatives to Marx. Except, of course, we know that actually doesn't happen in our schools. Your country doesn't have freedom of speech and mine has complete political subversion of the academy, so yeah- people who learn Marx are likely to become Marxists because of the [i]way[/i] it is being taught.
I don't like to resort to personal anecdote. I wasn't taught by any moderate Marxists from what I could tell, but I was taught by those that saw the value of having a moderate [i]presentation.[/i] So, it was Marxists that were overt and honest about their attempts to make every student they taught a Marxist on one hand, and Marxists who believed in presenting the reasons they were a Marxist along side some criticisms and alternatives on the other.
If the question is “Is it possible for a person to believe X”, then the answer is “yes”, for any X. That’s been my experience anyway.
This would be another example of what I mean when I say racism is primarily a leftist phenomenon.
The last I heard, you can be brought before a human rights tribunal for referencing portions of the Bible that say things about homosexuality that aren't approved by the State, and I'm sure similar rules apply to ideas about race and gender. 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.
This would be another example of the 1984-style leftist control over language that I'm talking about. The reality is that the expression of certain political opinions in Canada is (was?) criminalized. However, those opinions are [i]called[/i] 'hate speech' instead of 'political opinions', so it doesn't seem like a big deal. The idea is that people have a harder time even conceptualizing that people who disagree with state-approved political views can be rational people.
And that’s why I don’t bother with personal anecdotes.
Well, yes. If he takes a political office with a primary goal of changing the country to benefit his race, he’s a racist. Seems pretty straightforward to me.
It’s quite possible. I’ll have to do my research and get back to you (but don’t hold your breath). One of these days long after I’m done with this thread, I’ll have to find a Canadian politics thread and learn about my own government.
“Hate speech” is a term given to nefarious uses, however much it might have been intended for the right uses, as almost anything can be subsumed under the term given clever enough stringing together of connections to actual harm that some speech utterance might cause. 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, but there are ambiguous cases, and even cases which normal rational people would think are obviously not hate speech but some malignants patch together an argument that makes it seem like hate speech).
But just FYI, if you tell a Canadian he has no free speech, he’s probably going to laugh at you.
Again, bad joke.
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.
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…
Yes, that is what I meant, I was thinking state as another word for government.
No, but sorta yes. One of the biggest reasons the North won in the Civil War was because of infrastructure. The North had nicely paved roads and railroads and all that junk. The South, being largely made up of northern scots moving to America to get away from the English government, didn’t care for such things. There are writings of people noting that the scots would rather walk through the stream than build a bridge. It was also a problem in Scotland for years, until they started smartening up, possibly because the most grumpy and disagreeable moved to America, particularly the South… The North did not win because they had better people, or anything like that… The south sent their kids to military school all the time, and often kicked the shit out of the north, right until they started running out of things… The costs to move anything around was higher in the south, because of the lack of infrastructure… (This is one of many reasons, not the only reason.) (Another book worth looking at: Black Rednecks and White Liberals, by (THE MAN) Thomas Sowell)
He pointed it out because of an economic theory I presented. (Freedom of information vs protected innovation) In this case, I am presenting the idea that if we stop protecting the medical productions, even for the short time we do, we might see more innovation not less… It’s a theory alone though, a mental exercise.
Sure.
Well, that and I’m a horrible smart ass.
I’d prefer no.
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.
Rhetorical flourish is not a justification to take away freedoms.
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?
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.
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…
Nope, and that is why we had two, one to start with and fail, then the current one…
Nothing is necessary, nothing is guaranteed, nothing is predestined. “We are never more than one generation away from tyranny.”
Actually, it costs quite a bit more to everyone involved. Just not to everyone individually.
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. 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. 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.
How do the worst off in a society become better by giving it to them? It may be possible to create a status, so that no one changes, but are they made better? Socialism is stagnation.
And the rich, as they have more to give, generally… But what if instead we did our best to make everyone rich, then worry about the differences between one arbitrary group and another.
Sure.
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.
Go to a local Christian church, I don’t know if you have a denomination, but even with none, most of them’ll help you. And these are the same people that won’t want Same-Sex marriage, because they think it is harmful to those involved. People care, people give what they can, even if sometimes its an opinion that you don’t want.
I do. But People need to have enough that they feel safe to give. If you limit how much they have, they have less to give. Is it limited to conservative attitudes, no, I think the great majority of Liberals want to help people. Like, Liz, I think she is a good person, that really cares. I just don’t think there is enough proof that socialism actually helps, that transferring the freedom of decisions to “specialists” and “experts” is going to make things better.
YEAH!
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.
It is all wrong.
Sure. It never hurts to help.
The best response I got to the question of, “So, do you just not like a great set of tits?” was, “Naw, tits are great, I just like dick more.”
I left it open on purpose to laugh at the response.
I already acknowledge that, to a point. I find the lack of allowing everyone to vote, or slaves being 3/5th’s a person 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…
I think it is being used for the purpose for which it was originally intended- the criminalization of unwanted political speech.
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.
I can take it. No less true for that.
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.
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.
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.
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…
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…
I 