Jump to content
Ansem

General US Politics

Recommended Posts

13 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:

Over the past 40 years we've stopped adjusting minimum wage to cost-of-living. Let insurance carriers and credit lenders and mortgage bankers run amok with predatory business models.  And allowed big business to create this economy where if you're making minimum wage in low skilled menial labor: its just expected now that you can't pay your bills and raise a family without government assistance. Cost-of-living is too high and the jobs don't pay enough; public assistance and government welfare has to pick up the slack.

Maybe it's cause I'm only taking away from this the concept of "needing help" as opposed to the good intention and point you're making, but that doesn't sit right with me.

How about as an alternative, we just elect fellow hard working blue collar workers who can get into Congress and pass laws to regulate these companies and their profits. Someone who'll say no to being bought out. Someone the people can get behind and know they can hold to a higher moral and ethical standard. In the grander scheme of things, you make it so they can't run around unchecked. Then the cost of living, inflation, etc all that stuff, will go down. This is sounds better because you put an emphasis on the individual not needing "help" and still encourage them to better themselves if they want a different lifestyle.

The tone in your posts imply that you don't seem content with the current climate. The fact that they buy our politicians, that "lobbying" is a thing (which you call it something else), and much more. I think I get where you are coming from. I also think it isn't set up ideally. But I still do like capitalism. It use to symbolize something different untill greedy people took over. Back in the day that attitude was that if you want profits you need a good product/service. Coming up with ways to make the quality better to appeal to customers and take them from other businesses was the way things were done. Either that or find a way to use your resources more wisely to make the same good quality product but cheaper. It's thank to that attitude I feel we got America to where it is at. I would hope I'm not being overly naive and optimistic. But lately I dunno if it is cause I'm more cynical that I don't think that is the case anymore. I feel like business scam more often by giving us products/services that are poor quality but they lie about how good it is and take short cuts making it. I've seen certain industries not even improve or come up with new ideas for at least a generation now. It's the same shit, just different logos and brands. Only phones, games, and computers keep improving. We still got the same old bikes, we still drive automobiles instead of flying or teleporting, still toasters and oven instead of lazer guns that instant cook turkey on Thanksgiving. Still have to manually cut our grass instead of unleashing an outdoor version of a Roomba. Companies are supposed to be motivated to out do each other and compete instead of come up with cheap ploys and tactics listening to their marketing experts who got degrees in psychology and can now trick us better. So long story short, I want capitalism but just not greedy people in charge. 

But I don't want to push the narrative that people need help. Or that they can't do it on their own. That is a toxic attitude in my opinion. I grew up being told if I wanted better, I had to work hard and open those doors for myself. I don't want to raise a kid and tell them, "oh don't worry if you can afford things, they'll raise minimum wage and you can sign up for welfare to cover the difference plus food stamps". What kinda attitude is that? It feeds a sense of entitlement and that they are owed "life". If I didn't do my chores, I missed meals. Maybe I'm just interpreting things wrong when some people talk about the economy and government benefits. I don't think I understand the "intention" behind why people want the government to help. Or that they think the government needs to help.

If anything I think we need to remind these CEOs who their boss is, the customers! They don't set prices, we do! If we say it's too expensive, they better lower it or we are taking our money somewhere else. If they collaborate and set a floor price and we customers still can't afford it, then we send the message that we don't want that product/service. Provided that we aren't talking about something we NEED such as food, gas, clothes, and whatever else is necessary to live, we need to band together. Everytime someone goes behind our back and buys that product/service they send the message that it is still worth that dollar value. That person effectively betrays all of us (the every day consumer).

School tuition is in the same boat. Everytime someone goes and pays them, it tells them they can still find suckers who'll cough up the green for the degree they offer. That person is betraying us consumers. If they can band together and lobby plus buy our politicians, then we can too. Why aren't we more organized? Why is this so hard to understand? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tediz64 said:

But I don't want to push the narrative that people need help. Or that they can't do it on their own. That is a toxic attitude in my opinion.

No, the toxic attitude here is to see people who are struggling, saying "... eh, fuck 'em." and doing nothing. People need to learn to do things on their own, but people also need to know that helpless situations aren't as helpless as they seem. It feeds into the dog-eat-dog mentality that got us into this mess where the rich just take everything, and it is very hard for truly disenfranchised people to come to terms with when they're left to do everything alone. The only way to dig your way out of your hole is to bury everyone else.

Back to the rest of the post, your post outlines an ideal that's very close to socialism, even if you're not aware. At least from a SocDem approach. A system where the power is in the hands of the workers and not a small handful at the top, and a system where money just doesn't funnel to the top people, who(And let's be real here) likely aren't working as hard as the people at the bottom. It's the idea unions are based on. Obviously what you're saying is not socialism on its own, since you still seem opposed to extensive government social programs, but it's one of the major components of a foundation-based market system where workers have corporate power... though saying we should elect blue-collar people who know these issues firsthand and should be able to fix them without insane amounts of lobbying money swaying them would probably lead to some very extensive social programs, too.

Edited by Slumber

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/6/2019 at 7:53 AM, Tediz64 said:

 

Part 1) but see, im making the point that it is useless to throw numbers at people who don't even care about the numbers and are simply using that as a reason to reject immigration because the truth is they are quite possibly prejudice against outsiders. It's not an individual's responsibility to educate others on how beneficial immigration can be or is, it falls to them to do that. But they know it's a super complex and nuance problem to solve and they don't have time to understand it all. Do you really think Observer is going to have time in a one on one session teaching another person about basic economic terminology and telling that person about their various sources of information (which they won't go look up or believe) and how at the end of the day, it is beneficial for them to come? I'm very doubtful.

 

Part 2) sorry buddy, but college is not a requirement. I disagree there. The perspective I'm looking at this from is that nobody is entitled to that so called "skilled" work. There is plenty of work to do and money to make unskilled. It might not be favorable and it might even make life a struggle to keep up with (we can talk about inflation and cost living separately and figure out who to point the finger at) but that doesn't mean it's the government's job or responsibility to grant you opportunities to get your dream job. If you want a life of luxury or a lifestyle different from the poor and unskilled, be prepared to make sacrifices for it. In America that naive notion that you can have it your way is what is making us weak in my opinion. Your duty and obligation in life is to be independent. The rest is what you make out of it. This means putting a roof over your own head and stop mooching of the parents. Pay bills and put bacon on the table. I know I could think a little harder and try to put this in a less crude way and make it sound more delicate, but that isn't my style. You want that fancy job sitting in the a/c making good money only using your head (and your hands too i guess. In a dexterous way)? You want a lifestyle where you can eat fancy food, have a piano in your foyer, take vacations around the world? Well buddy, that sounds like a personal problem. Sounds like you "want" something, not "need" something. That "skilled" stuff your talking about that colleges and universities open the door for you, is optional. Its a privilege. A luxury. Not a requirement. You can live working unskilled labor. You just aren't going to be happy or being doing a bunch fun stuff getting the chance to have different experiences in life. Nobody is entitled to those dream jobs or careers they keep reaching for that they have no business aiming for. People need to learn to be more practical. If you want doors opened up for you, then find a way to open them without making others open them for you. It's called hard work, determination, ambition, and being self sufficient. It use to be at least. I dunno what this new generation calls it. By the way, I know how I said all this sounds like I'm aiming it directly at you, but i meant it in general to any individual. Just saying. I'm not aiming at you personally. That is my opinion regarding higher education and what not.

getting into a conversation with someone you have already assumed will ignore you means you shouldn't have started talking in the first place. it's possible to be anti-immigration for myriad reasons--not just racism and xenophobia. so knowing the facts is helpful in those situations. shoblongoo makes the point that politicians are using immigrants as their scapegoat, etc etc and he's right. but i think if you read my post i'm not even making that sort of argument. what i said i think is still true, immigration is more subtle depending on how deep you'd like to go. if for whatever reason 400,000 people decided to immigrate into san diego, i don't think san diego could handle that (depending on how quickly it happens obviously, and i'm assuming in this instance that it'd be quick). i also said, in general, immigration is a net positive, so this is where shoblongoo's point comes in. in the united states, people who generally disfavor immigration are likely using them as a scapegoat or whatever. i'm aware of that bit, but more nuanced discussions can exist too.

yeah, where? lol. you sound like a boomer--blissfully unaware of the exploitative nature of capitalism with a bs "pull yourself up by the bootstraps" mentality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Slumber said:

Back to the rest of the post, your post outlines an ideal that's very close to socialism, even if you're not aware. At least from a SocDem approach. A system where the power is in the hands of the workers and not a small handful at the top, and a system where money just doesn't funnel to the top people, who(And let's be real here) likely aren't working as hard as the people at the bottom. It's the idea unions are based on. Obviously what you're saying is not socialism on its own, since you still seem opposed to extensive government social programs, but it's one of the major components of a foundation-based market system where workers have corporate power... though saying we should elect blue-collar people who know these issues firsthand and should be able to fix them without insane amounts of lobbying money swaying them would probably lead to some very extensive social programs, too.

I'd super appreciate an academic source that puts an emphasis on terminology based of history to confirm this. I'm quite shocked to hear that my "ideal" is similar in appearance to socialism. Especially considering what impression and understanding I'm have when it comes to defining socialism. I thought my idea of how things should operate more closely resemble a republic state using capitalism. Btw, just so a future misunderstanding isn't created as a result, I'm not favor of this platform I'm currently discussing. This is more or less me trying to be practical and compromise with others to something that in theory, should be fair. I would like to say that I try as often as I can to meet people 50/50 as long as we keep empathy out it. I think it's impossible to make everyone happy so keeping things neutral sounds like the more ethical way to go about making decisions that affect millions.

Your statement about the dog eat dog mentality is actually spot on in how I would prefer we run things in the world. @Life echoed a thought I agree with. People who don't serve in the military don't truly understand the value of life or the concept of how might makes right. You can espouse ideals and morals all you want, but a moral compass isn't going to protect you from someone who has intentions of killing you. Other people have their own way of life that they aren't going to simply give up or leave behind because you are "taking the moral high ground". Within your borders your safe and can believe what you want, but outside of them it becomes a battle. I'm bring this up cause I really believe many people don't understand how far other people are willing to go for their own country and their own way of life. People need to learn to be stronger. It's either that or you be friends with someone who is strong. If you keep trying to wipe out the people who live by the creed or philosophy "dog eat dog" world, you only did that within your own borders to your own people. You didn't do that to the outside people. And believe me, they will get stronger while we get weaker and our position as one of the 3 super powers on Earth will be a thing of the past. In class called lifespan growth and development, you'll learn about a concept called object permanence that happens when you are under the age of 5. You know just because you don't see it anymore, doesn't mean it stopped existing. How that relates is this: Threats exist and just cause you don't perceive them, doesn't mean they won't hurt you. Let some people be strong and live by the philosophy "it's kill or be killed", because you're going to want them as your friends when our enemies come. People like me do what we can to negotiate and compromise and all I'm asking is let us keep the system running in a way that doesn't put an emphasis on sending the message people need help in order to make it or to get by. That will have nasty consequences. But I digress. Back to the school stuff and immigration. 

15 hours ago, Phoenix Wright said:

getting into a conversation with someone you have already assumed will ignore you means you shouldn't have started talking in the first place. it's possible to be anti-immigration for myriad reasons--not just racism and xenophobia. so knowing the facts is helpful in those situations. shoblongoo makes the point that politicians are using immigrants as their scapegoat, etc etc and he's right. but i think if you read my post i'm not even making that sort of argument. what i said i think is still true, immigration is more subtle depending on how deep you'd like to go. if for whatever reason 400,000 people decided to immigrate into san diego, i don't think san diego could handle that (depending on how quickly it happens obviously, and i'm assuming in this instance that it'd be quick). i also said, in general, immigration is a net positive, so this is where shoblongoo's point comes in. in the united states, people who generally disfavor immigration are likely using them as a scapegoat or whatever. i'm aware of that bit, but more nuanced discussions can exist too.

yeah, where? lol. you sound like a boomer--blissfully unaware of the exploitative nature of capitalism with a bs "pull yourself up by the bootstraps" mentality.

I think I get what you are mean now and how shob's point ties in. I guess I felt Obsever's time was better spent not trying to get across to someone that can't even be influenced to begin with. And I feel most people against immigration are like that. Just bias I guess. 

But to correct you, I'm not a boomer. I'm a millennial. Plus I am aware of how exploitative CEOs can be. But who said we had be their victims and take it like a little girl? Do you just let bullies punch you and smile? No, you punch back! Learn how to exploit CEOs and hit'em where it hurts. Their profits and revenue. What's with that victim mentality? I said it earlier but I'll rephrase it again, taking the higher moral ground or using a moral compass isn't going protect you from someone bigger and stronger who wants it their way. Might makes right. You want those business to stop taking advantage of minorities and disenfranchised people? Then those people better make them stop. Nobody else is going to do it for them. I'm not advocating violence, don't misunderstand. I'm just saying, rally together behind a leader and do something about it. What I will say is though, the correct answer is most certainly NOT to ask the government for help and support while you stay a victim of those CEOs for the rest of your life. Maybe I'm coming across wrong? Do you get me? Again, I'm not saying let's get violent with each other and our own countrymen, but do you get how I'm saying fight back? Elect leaders who'll pass laws to enforce regulations on this companies so they can't get away with those predatory practices. I mean they still have to make profits since that is their motive for staying in business, and their business is what gives us our products/service that we happily consume, but we can pass laws making it so they make stuff more readily available to all consumers fairly. The unions can do their part to protect employees from being taken advantage of. I'm pretty sure we have laws in place (and if we don't we can pass them), but we just need these businesses to stop hiring lawyers that help them distract us. That plus the judges who turn and look the other way. What about this fight is so hard to win? Let's get some good people in the legal profession who won't get bought out and some good judges voted in to look out for the little guy. The fight seems easy to win in theory. 

(Goes back and rereads before hitting submit:. I think my point is pretty clear. I hope....)

Edited by Tediz64
Trying to fix typos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you really want to shovel a might makes right argument, lol. That's the attitude hardened criminals and other malcontents have, and they're rightly shunned, ignored, marginalized and kept down by society at large. Take your dysfunctional, antisocial garbage somewhere else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Excellen Browning said:

If you really want to shovel a might makes right argument, lol. That's the attitude hardened criminals and other malcontents have, and they're rightly shunned, ignored, marginalized and kept down by society at large. Take your dysfunctional, antisocial garbage somewhere else.

How about, like, everywhere in the Middle East?

That is generally the thought process here and we are effectively barbarians (the "we" is everyone in the region with us Israelis being only slightly more civilized than our neighbours but not much).

Western bourgeoises don't apply here and that is what you sound like, mate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you actually know what bourgeois means or did you learn the definition from the same place where you picked up the term "race communist"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Excellen Browning said:

If you really want to shovel a might makes right argument, lol. That's the attitude hardened criminals and other malcontents have, and they're rightly shunned, ignored, marginalized and kept down by society at large. Take your dysfunctional, antisocial garbage somewhere else.

I won't stoop down to your level where I trade insults or belittle another for their beliefs. This thread and its location is for serious discussion and debate, not petty name calling and hate. You need to look at your actions and reflect on what you've said. That was disrespectful and uncalled for. If you're not willing to discuss solutions or different perspectives to look at problems from in order to better bring more people to the table so we can collectively agree on how to move forward, then you need to leave this form. @Excellen Browning

If at that time when I phrased the part metaphorically of getting punched like a girl and taking it, offended you, then I apologize. It was supposed to be an analogy for the behavior and it's similarities to how people conduct themselves when pointing fingers expecting that after you've identified a bully, everything will get better because the expectation will follow that the now called out bully will apologize and make amends. But that is not how reality works or how things in life will go. On the other hand, there is no need for you to claim I'm dysfunctional or antisocial. That was counter productive to any form of debate or constructive feedback and shuts a conversation down from any progress. Let's be adults and try to fix this without being immature. 

(Edit: added in paragraph) I want to discuss the merits of your accusation. On what grounds can you even make these assertions? When did you have the opportunity to sit down and talk with antisocial, dysfunctional, or hardened criminals all the finer points of philosophy and economics? When did you discuss styles of government, leadership, and actually addressing real threats to our country? Do you have a Bachelor's or Masters in Criminology? Did you study this in-depth with peer-reviewed papers  critically analyzing then subsequently write a thesis in a graduate paper on this content? Hm? Or are you simply upset because I'm sensible, educated, presenting real solutions but don't agree with your political views? 

Edited by Tediz64
Wanted to add a paragraph that would encourage the beginning of a constructive debate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/7/2019 at 12:37 AM, Tediz64 said:

But I still do like capitalism. 

I like well-regulated capitalism.

Classic capitalist theory recognizes that a "negative externality" is a public harm that a private business will not avoid when driven purely by profit-motive, and further recognizes that the proper role of government in a well-regulated capitalist system is to use force-of-law to correct negative externalities.

Thats the kind of capitalism I like.

 

On 9/7/2019 at 12:37 AM, Tediz64 said:

But I don't want to push the narrative that people need help. Or that they can't do it on their own. That is a toxic attitude in my opinion. I grew up being told if I wanted better, I had to work hard and open those doors for myself. I don't want to raise a kid and tell them, "oh don't worry if you can afford things, they'll raise minimum wage and you can sign up for welfare to cover the difference plus food stamps". What kinda attitude is that?

...odd way to conceptualize the issue...

Like lets look at the classic negative externality used in every economics textbook: environmental damage.

Imagine looking at a law which makes it illegal for factories to dump untreated toxic waste into the general water supply and thinking what kind of weaklings are we raising here? I'm not gonna teach my kids that they need the governments help to not get poisoned--they gonna learn how to boil and pasteurize.  If they want clean water, they can open that door on their own.  

Living Wage laws in a well-regulated capitalist system should be viewed as no different than environmental protection; government stepping in to correct a negative externality. 

Its less about "helping people," if you have some moral aversion to the concept, and more about preventing the infliction of harm. (i.e. the basic function of law)

The prevailing wage for low-skilled menial labor in any given country being lower than the baseline cost-of-living is a social harm, of a kind that government has a necessary and proper role in using the law to remedy.
 

On 9/7/2019 at 12:37 AM, Tediz64 said:

How about as an alternative, we just elect fellow hard working blue collar workers who can get into Congress and pass laws to regulate these companies and their profits. Someone who'll say no to being bought out. 


lol we did that--for the first time in a long time--by electing A.O.C.

And The Right won't stop whining that we sent a bartender to Congress.  (goddamn right we sent a bartender to Congress)

We should kick out the Pelosi's and the McConnell's send more bartenders to Congress. 🍻🍻🍻

________

...specifically in response to your whole might-makes-right theory of social order....

That is the structure of society as it exists in a lawless, anarchistic state. 

The whole reason we over the course of human events developed the concept of  'law' was to elevate ourselves from that state.  

Law exists to make the human condition less brutish and more prosperous than it would be in its absence. "Law enforcement"  is said to be a good thing and the work that law enforcement professionals do is said to be praiseworthy because the function of law is to make the the human condition less brutish and more prosperous than it would be in its absence. 

If a social order built on law and law enforcement is simply a society of might-makes-right where the law exists only to formally codify that concept, than why even bother with laws and law enforcement in the first place?

What then is the purpose of law? 
  

Edited by Shoblongoo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Tediz64 said:

I won't stoop down to your level where I trade insults or belittle another for their beliefs. This thread and its location is for serious discussion and debate, not petty name calling and hate. You need to look at your actions and reflect on what you've said. That was disrespectful and uncalled for. If you're not willing to discuss solutions or different perspectives to look at problems from in order to better bring more people to the table so we can collectively agree on how to move forward, then you need to leave this form. @Excellen Browning

If at that time when I phrased the part metaphorically of getting punched like a girl and taking it, offended you, then I apologize. It was supposed to be an analogy for the behavior and it's similarities to how people conduct themselves when pointing fingers expecting that after you've identified a bully, everything will get better because the expectation will follow that the now called out bully will apologize and make amends. But that is not how reality works or how things in life will go. On the other hand, there is no need for you to claim I'm dysfunctional or antisocial. That was counter productive to any form of debate or constructive feedback and shuts a conversation down from any progress. Let's be adults and try to fix this without being immature. 

(Edit: added in paragraph) I want to discuss the merits of your accusation. On what grounds can you even make these assertions? When did you have the opportunity to sit down and talk with antisocial, dysfunctional, or hardened criminals all the finer points of philosophy and economics? When did you discuss styles of government, leadership, and actually addressing real threats to our country? Do you have a Bachelor's or Masters in Criminology? Did you study this in-depth with peer-reviewed papers  critically analyzing then subsequently write a thesis in a graduate paper on this content? Hm? Or are you simply upset because I'm sensible, educated, presenting real solutions but don't agree with your political views? 

I'll belittle your beliefs because your beliefs are at least 300 years out of date, if not several hundred thousand and obviously unworkable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Excellen Browning said:

I'll belittle your beliefs because your beliefs are at least 300 years out of date, if not several hundred thousand and obviously unworkable.

150 years out of date tbh. It was pretty mainstream thinking for even the first few decades after the industrial revolution, and it took a while thereafter for the social ethos to really catch up to the changing realities of human need and potential.  

But those beliefs seem to be making an unfortunate comeback under Trump and the new nationalism of the past decade, so addressing them on the merits and really dressing down their deficiencies is advisable. 

Edited by Shoblongoo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Shoblongoo said:

150 years out of date tbh. It was pretty mainstream thinking for even the first few decades after the industrial revolution, and it took a while thereafter for the social ethos to really catch up to the changing realities of human need and potential.  

But those beliefs seem to be making an unfortunate comeback under Trump and the new nationalism of the past decade, so addressing them on the merits and really dressing down their deficiencies is advisable. 

If you ask me the French nobility getting guillotined was the end of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe he's almost certainly using the phrase might makes right incorrectly. Most commonly it is used to refer to the fact that rules and laws, and a society's view on right and wrong, is determined by those in power, not based on whether or not it is correct or not.

Advocation for being subservient is something that I don't consider moral, just or respectable.

Either that, or you go down the rabbit hole that is social darwinism. Look up the book Might is Right if you want to see what I mean.
(one noted as recommended by one of the latest mass shooters, by the way)

Edited by Tryhard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Excellen Browning said:

If you ask me the French nobility getting guillotined was the end of it.

nahhhhh I'd just consider that the end of the idea that the 'might' part of might-makes-right should be derived from bloodline and noble heritage  

Fast forward to industrialization, and we''ve moved from:

Image result for noble aristocrat

To:
Image result for tophat and monocle millionaire


But the concept persists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, epilepsyduck said:

Do you actually know what bourgeois means or did you learn the definition from the same place where you picked up the term "race communist"?

You're funny.

I literally mean it at the opposite of "philistines" or "barbarians", especially since I would use both those words to accurate describe both my country and the nation-states that surround us (and have already done so).

Any other quick-witted barbs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/3/2019 at 1:17 PM, Shoblongoo said:

The politicians who haven't adjusted minimum wage laws to match the cost-of-living index for decades, and have allowed big business to increase profit margins at the expense of taxpayers by only covering a fraction of their own labor costs + shifting the remainder of the burden onto publicly funded anti-poverty programs?

^^^
So Bernie Sanders just rolled out an interesting little policy proposal on-point here.  He's calling it the "Bezos Act."

The proposed law would tax companies for the welfare received by their employees.  

I get the theory behind the proposal. The idea is that if companies want to cut labor costs and raise profits at the expense of taxpayers by underpaying their workers + shifting the cost of covering their baseline expenses to public assistance, then a cost should be imposed upon them for doing this to make the decision an unprofitable one. 

Employers would then have profit-motive to pay their employees a living wage, because it would be less expensive to simply pay a living wage then to pay the punitive tax for underpaying your employees so badly that they qualify for welfare.

Thoughts???

 

Edited by Shoblongoo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Phoenix Wright said:

you're good at having correct opinions.

Life sounds like the kinda guy who says "I don't know why you're telling *me* how to think, I was raised on the streets." Even though he was raised in Canada and moved to Israel later.

Except my mans is trying to lord over us by saying "it really IS different here! Fuck everyone who lost a war!" Doesn't explain what he means by bourgeois - I mean, you're of the bourgeois of your own region, don't give me this bullshit.

I wager if Israel were losing the conflict, you would revoke your "might makes right" viewpoint on the grounds that you're being directly targeted. Have you ever analyzed the situation as if the roles were reversed?

If you want to avoid witty retorts, how about you explain things instead of labeling them huh? Have you really not changed at all in the last few years?

Also did he really say race communist? The fuck is that? Is that the same concept as cultural Marxism which is used to preach straight up supremacist policies?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:

I like well-regulated capitalism.

Classic capitalist theory recognizes that a "negative externality" is a public harm that a private business will not avoid when driven purely by profit-motive, and further recognizes that the proper role of government in a well-regulated capitalist system is to use force-of-law to correct negative externalities.

Thats the kind of capitalism I like.

 

...odd way to conceptualize the issue...

Like lets look at the classic negative externality used in every economics textbook: environmental damage.

Imagine looking at a law which makes it illegal for factories to dump untreated toxic waste into the general water supply and thinking what kind of weaklings are we raising here? I'm not gonna teach my kids that they need the governments help to not get poisoned--they gonna learn how to boil and pasteurize.  If they want clean water, they can open that door on their own.  

Living Wage laws in a well-regulated capitalist system should be viewed as no different than environmental protection; government stepping in to correct a negative externality. 

Its less about "helping people," if you have some moral aversion to the concept, and more about preventing the infliction of harm. (i.e. the basic function of law)

The prevailing wage for low-skilled menial labor in any given country being lower than the baseline cost-of-living is a social harm, of a kind that government has a necessary and proper role in using the law to remedy.

 



________

...specifically in response to your whole might-makes-right theory of social order....

That is the structure of society as it exists in a lawless, anarchistic state. 

The whole reason we over the course of human events developed the concept of  'law' was to elevate ourselves from that state.  

Law exists to make the human condition less brutish and more prosperous than it would be in its absence. "Law enforcement"  is said to be a good thing and the work that law enforcement professionals do is said to be praiseworthy because the function of law is to make the the human condition less brutish and more prosperous than it would be in its absence. 

If a social order built on law and law enforcement is simply a society of might-makes-right where the law exists only to formally codify that concept, than why even bother with laws and law enforcement in the first place?

What then is the purpose of law? 
  

To the part bold and underline: I do too. Sounds like it works. 

To the italics and underlined part:  Thanks for the new information. I'll add that into my understanding of these concepts and adopt it right away. That sounds perfectly reasonable. If it is as simple as you put it right there, then i don't see why i should not be in favor regulated capitalism. I have to admit, i only took introductory level classes like macro and micro econmomices so i'm not very well versed in all the nuanced details on how to structure a well functioning and fair system in terms of how to let the market run itself. I barely studied up to the point of knowing what "laissez faire" meant. The teacher explained something about an unseen invisible hand guiding our economy and i could have sworn at the time, i took it as he meant that we'd of course enforce being ethical and moral. The expectation that they self restrain themselves and be disciplined must have been my naivety. 

To the part that is crossed: I'm sorry. I must clearly be doing a horrible job explaining my perspective. I'm under the impression that before any actions are taken, at the very least an executive high ranking manager (or CEO)has a council  that instructs them on their choices and how to proceed forward. I had the expectation that at this time, they'd ponder the information and facts and decide whether or not what they are doing is morally good and isn't just all about profits. If they are advised of the consequences of their actions and are made to understand they are inflicting harm directly or indirectly on people then at the least they'd pick the option that saves face and minimizes their losses as opposed to making the choice to inflict that harm.

In my head i imagine this scenario panning out like this.

"Council/board member: Sir, you have these options. (fast forward to explain B) But be advised Sir, this will upset the local people. If we dumped toxic waste, the people will likely raise concerns and bring attention to it, at which point we might have to contend with lawsuits to otherwise make that problem go away. In terms of cost, we can navigate that with our lawyers but the choice is yours Sir.

CEO/executive manager: Hmm....lets go with option A. I don't want to harm the environment. We'll simply take the profit cuts and see if there are other avenues of increasing our revenue."

Why i imagined it like that? Because i thought CEOs were humans too. But i guess i shouldn't give them the benefit of doubt any more. Its sad we came to this point, but they asked for it, so its time to show them that actions have consequences. Their days of focusing on their profits at the expense of citizens, ends soon. 

Regarding the last part you sectioned off: I did a horrible job of explaining my theory of how we should conduct ourselves. How we should not take on a victim mentality. I'm not saying we adopt the "might makes right" philosophy as a life style and a way to govern ourselves, i'm strictly saying that we have a system in place that gives everyone the means to put checks and balances on other parts of our country without having to resort to violence. I explicitly said twice, let's not resort to violence against our fellow countrymen. I simply say we should try to use same system these executives and CEOs are abusing and then turn it against them. Consumers have a means of putting business in their place. The way i read it in the textbooks, in theory it shouldn't be hard to hold businesses accountable for their practices and their prices. Allowing the cost of living to inflate and go up beyond what people are capable of affording shouldn't be difficult to combat if we simply take them to court and enforce regulations on them. I'm not quite sure what part i'm doing a bad job of explaining but i'll wait for responses to see if maybe i cleared it up. I think i did?

4 hours ago, Excellen Browning said:

I'll belittle your beliefs because your beliefs are at least 300 years out of date, if not several hundred thousand and obviously unworkable.

You can see yourself out of this form Sir. Its for debate/discussion in the serious thread. Not for petty people wanting to hate others and talk trash. Good bye. Don't post here again until you've learned to conduct yourself like an adult. I gave you a chance to point out your reasoning and bring facts and sources of information to the table but you decided against being a sensible mature adult.

4 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:

150 years out of date tbh. It was pretty mainstream thinking for even the first few decades after the industrial revolution, and it took a while thereafter for the social ethos to really catch up to the changing realities of human need and potential.  

But those beliefs seem to be making an unfortunate comeback under Trump and the new nationalism of the past decade, so addressing them on the merits and really dressing down their deficiencies is advisable. 

My area of expertise isn't in economics or political sciences. I mainly studied philosophy, psychology, and sociology to better understand people. When discussing how to effectively lead or otherwise be in a position in which you make choices on behalf of millions of people, i simply fall back onto being practical while assuming that of course we wouldn't do things that are unethical or immoral. I also thing leadership is supposed to be a form of guidance. Kinda like just simply being in charge of allocating resources and man power. I put it on the people to be self sufficient and hold themselves to a standard in which the try to be the best version of themselves they can be. 

@Tryhard Oh no. I hope you aren't referring to me with that statement? If those with power are clearly being unethical, then they shouldn't have power. It being a matter of right or wrong based of the perception of those at the top is an awful way to move forward as a country. Holding leaders to a specific standard we can all agree on is a pretty hard discussion to have. I'm not quite sure that is something i want to get into because, as an individual i place a huge emphasis on being successful, independent, and reaching a state in which you can say you'd earn your place in heaven [metaphorically speaking]. (if you don't believe, that is fine. I only brought up the religious part since everyone seems to have the same knowledge and understanding of what it takes to get into heaven or at the very least, what the expectation is of a person if they want to live a "good" life according to a certain set of rules created by a certain set of people, based of certain philosophy in which one should conduct themselves. The standard they hold themselves to and their goal is at the very least observable for all intents and purposes)

In philosophy, i learned that right and wrong plus good and bad can be very subjective to each country based of its culture. The concept of "universal" rights and wrongs plus goods and bads, isn't feasible or attainable in this world. Not with over 7.6 billion humans living different lifestyles. But interesting enough, (just in regards to our own country here in the USA) we do all seem to agree that inflicting harm on others or making people suffer in any way, isn't acceptable. But how you define and point out if a person is or isn't inflicting harm and whether it is intentional, unintentional, with malice, without malice, and etc is the part where stuff gets really bogged down. I'm in favor of laws that would otherwise demand that everyone study accounting/book keeping, philosophy, and MORE history. (the accounting is so people can stop making bad/poor financial choices lol). I think it'd go a very long way in helping us all to really move forward with a better appreciation of each other. I like studying it at the very least. Makes good food for thought. I also think it helped me to be more receptive of other's and their opinions but only cause i know that a person has their own opinion and whether or not i want to agree with it or disagree with it can be independent of whether i'm trying to cooperate and coexist with them or if i'm trying to be friends with them. 

Like for example in this thread, i'm not particularly trying to be friends with anyone. I'm just trying to coexist with others. But to do that i need to learn more about them. Then after i have a good understanding i can come to the table to discuss how we go about coexisting. Er....not literally. Like figuratively. I mean i'm in a political thread discussing america's future and how we should be operating. What better place to learn how the populace thinks in a small community that has my niche hobbies (gaming/anime). I like the location of this thread. Makes me feel comfortable.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Tediz64 said:

@Tryhard Oh no. I hope you aren't referring to me with that statement? If those with power are clearly being unethical, then they shouldn't have power. It being a matter of right or wrong based of the perception of those at the top is an awful way to move forward as a country. Holding leaders to a specific standard we can all agree on is a pretty hard discussion to have. I'm not quite sure that is something i want to get into because, as an individual i place a huge emphasis on being successful, independent, and reaching a state in which you can say you'd earn your place in heaven [metaphorically speaking]. (if you don't believe, that is fine. I only brought up the religious part since everyone seems to have the same knowledge and understanding of what it takes to get into heaven or at the very least, what the expectation is of a person if they want to live a "good" life according to a certain set of rules created by a certain set of people, based of certain philosophy in which one should conduct themselves. The standard they hold themselves to and their goal is at the very least observable for all intents and purposes)

I didn't think you thought so, which is why I was questioning why you were using the phrase might makes right because it's a very social darwinist term.

That said, it takes more than an individuals actions to hurt any sort of corporate or CEO's interests in most cases. Some things can simply be impossible without a government writing laws and enforcing them, for example, I could suggest to others to reduce their carbon emissions and drive a fuel-efficient car, but what actions people take in their personal life is small potatoes compared to the fact that only 100 corporations contribute 71% of global emissions.

The real reason why the so-called 'fight' is difficult to win is that there, for the past few decades at least, has existed moneyed and lobbied interests in every facet of politics that indirectly influences mainstream opinions for politicians. If candidates cannot be known without money, and have to take money from big donors, then they are going to, unconsciously or not, enact policy direction in their favour. 

Just being a blue collar worker isn't going to get you elected even in an era of populism. AOC being elected was an outlier and an exception, there was other Justice Democrat candidates that ranged from teachers to iron workers that lost. (Not to discredit their efforts)

Edited by Tryhard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Tryhard said:

I didn't think you thought so, which is why I was questioning why you were using the phrase might makes right because it's a very social darwinist term.

That said, it takes more than an individuals actions to hurt any sort of corporate or CEO's interests in most cases. Some things can simply be impossible without a government writing laws and enforcing them, for example, I could suggest to others to reduce their carbon emissions and drive a fuel-efficient car, but what actions people take in their personal life is small potatoes compared to the fact that only 100 corporations contribute 71% of global emissions.

The real reason why the so-called 'fight' is difficult to win is that there, for the past few decades at least, has existed moneyed and lobbied interests in every facet of politics that indirectly influences mainstream opinions for politicians. If candidates cannot be known without money, and have to take money from big donors, then they are going to, unconsciously or not, enact policy direction in their favour. 

I see. Well, i'd hope every day consumers and blue collar workers are at least in the planning stages of how to fix this economy. I'll leave it up to them to fight that battle. My area of expertise, effort, and resources are better spent fighting battles i'm more proficient at.  

Regarding my early stance when i was actually using "might makes right", it was in reference to how we should be treating other countries. @Life was making the assertion that when it came to domestic affairs their country has a specific attitude toward dealing with their own inner turmoil and was explaining the atmosphere of the people as opposed to the ideals plus how we would handle the situation if we are ourselves were in the middle of that unrest/war. I think. Am i right? (to Life)

Furthermore, i was saying that i agree, power is absolute when it comes to establishing your own country's values and how you will deal with interlopers. Americans have a certain lifestyle that if threatened, should be defended with the attitude "might makes right". Anyone willing to step into our borders and mess with us, needs to be dealt with as such. I'm not, however, encouraging that attitude towards our own citizens or any future/soon-to-be citizens. Just outsiders. I hope i'm making that part clear. I'll say it again just to be on the safe side, we should treat invaders (and how we define that word can be discussed another time) with the attitude "might makes right". Just invaders. You know? The people who clearly want to destroy the United States of America.

Edited by Tediz64
2nd paragraph edited for clarity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John Bolton has been fired. He texted Kilmeade in the middle of a segment saying he resigned.

Did Trump truly fire John Bolton because he disagreed with his warmongering?

Did Bolton resign because he no longer saw opportunity to be successful in starting a war with Iran or Venezuela?

I wouldn't be surprised if Trump fired him because he's the existing cabinet member that's praised/defended him the least as of late.

Regardless. Bolton no longer being in that position is a good thing. I'd give credit to Trump on removing him but it's the same as thanking the arson for putting out a fire when they intentionally set it off in the first place.

Edited by Dr. Tarrasque

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bolton is (was?) the most dangerous person that I would point to in the US government. Finally some good news. Hopefully he never gets another high-profile job ever again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...