Reforming Democracy

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?

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.

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. 

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.

Ooo, I like graphs.

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.)

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

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?].”

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

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.

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

“I hate niggers” ← There, let’s see the authorities crack down me now. :laughing: [size=50](actually, that’d be you, Ucci)[/size]

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.

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:

@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.

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

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.

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

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

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:

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

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?

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”?

Ok, then I take this to mean I’ve finally understood where you’re coming from… finally! :laughing:

And did you have a good laugh?

Awesome!

I’m nothing if not supremely magnanimous… (and humble. :laughing: )

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…

Yes, though few people would want such a thing. There are roads and Military to pay for.

This graph is little different than the first.

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.)

Rather than the preamble, yes.

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.)

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:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Me8Y-cuvYNU[/youtube]

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.

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.

It took me long enough to make it clear. :laughing:

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…)

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:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERj3QeGw9Ok[/youtube]

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!

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

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.  

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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 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 :smiley:

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

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.

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 [i]actual[/i] 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.

They are not rhetorical flourish…

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.

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.

Why do people innovate the drugs? Usually it’s to make money.

Does it matter? Should I care?

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.

Don’t know how it is relevant?

i think the preponderance of evidence indicates that most advocates of affirmative action and hate crime legislation are in fact well-intentioned.

I agree, but that does not counter what is being said. Hitler was well-intentioned, while simultaneously making a power grab. If I believe that the best thing for everyone is that I’m in charge of their lives, it fits both qualifications…

Please note, I am not calling anyone Hitler, I am pointing out that tyranny does not require poor intentions.

Intentions mean jack-all, is a more accurate response.

Edit: Some other good examples; Jim Jones thought he was saving peoples souls. The Westboro Baptist Church does too.

Now we take a much needed break. :laughing:

Unless you’re trying to decide how to deal with a person. You would deal with someone who’s purposeful trying to lie and manipulate you much differently than you would someone who is simply mistaken or brainwashed.

Time, yes–over time the system might degrade further. You talked about “investments” from the rich, and I’m not sure what you mean by this, but the picture it conjured in my mind was that as the economy drops overall (the red arrow), the rich will have less, which means when it comes around to next tax season, they can’t be taxed as much, which means the poor don’t get as much. Over a long period of time, the amount that the poor get could dwindle down to 0 (I suppose this is why Ucci’s all right with temporary socialist intervention–if it worked).

Right, poor wording. Let’s say (X + 0.0001)% where X goes to everything else (roads, military).

The difference is that in the first two graphs (the before and after graphs), the curve is rotated about the exact center (the rich are taxed the most so they go down, the poor get those taxes in the form of social aid so they go up, thus the curve rotates–i.e. it flattens). In the “mixed” graph which you’re questioning, I did the same thing except dropped the “after” graph by a little in addition to rotating it (that’s what the red arrow represents). Note that the two graphs cross near the lower left, not the center–because it’s dropped.

Rotation without dropping (first 2 graphs in last post):

overlapped.jpg

Rotation plus small drop:

mixed market.jpg

Rotation plus huge drop:

poor get poorer.jpg

What I was trying to convey with this is that even if the economy as a whole drops, the poor may still get something via social aid. It all depends on how much money the poor can get, and at what rate, balanced with how badly the economy drops due to the damaging effects of socialism. In the last graph above, for example, I tried to render a picture of what would happen if the damage to the economy was so severe that even the tax dollars that are supposed to go to the poor isn’t enough–the poor get poorer even then.

But you were right above–the effects of time are not taken into consideration with these graphs.

Right, and it’s obvious why if you think about it. In order to be in constant battle, you have to have two factions against each other, one saying “we need to draw the line here,” the other saying “no, we need to draw the line here.” In other words, where ever that point of equilibrium is supposed to be, neither faction is going to agree on it. So you must have one faction pushing to have the line farther to the right than it should be and the other pushing to have the line farther to the left than it should be–the equilibrium coming about in virtue of these two opposing force balancing each other. But when they become imbalanced, who’s going to referee? Who’s going to blow the whistle and say “Woaw, guys, we’re missing the mark!” Both factions are going to disagree as that “mark” isn’t where either faction thinks it should be.

Why would you feel stupid? I’m the one who didn’t catch on.

I was still talking in the context of the pie metaphor (you know, starving from not enough pie?).

Agreed.

Hey, I’m a slow learner… and like I said, this is all new to me (I took one economics course in university, and my best friend and I spent half the time making fun of our professor instead of listening).

You mean if they forced their slaves to vote pro-slavery, don’t you? Or were there slaves who felt comfortable in their enslavement and wanted it that way?

Thanks again for the Thomas Sowell videos. You aren’t kidding–he really is a very interesting guy.