There are some pretty bright lines when it comes to ideology. Someone who supports Barack Obama for the Presidency cannot reasonably call themselves a conservative, any more than a Bush supporter could reasonably describe themself as a liberal.
What if, policy aside, you think the Republican candidate was lying about his positions, or was doomed to failure in enacting them, or was too inept to implement in a non-destructive fashion, or was terrible for any number of other reasons unrelated to his conservative credentials? Or that he was liable to die at any moment and had picked the functional equivalent of a particularly stupid slime-mold as his running mate?
Speaking only for myself, I's sit the election out and wait for the next one. Or vote for a 3rd party candidate.
But, as a conservative, if you find yourself unhappy with the GOP candidate, endorsing/voting for the Democrat is hardly the solution.
Personally, I vote for the person that most accurately represents me on issues they will be able to affect. Example: A Pro-gun, pro-choice, pro-gold-fucking-standard congressman is unlikely to have any impact on actually bringing back the gold standard. What party is he? I could give a fuck. Meanwhile, if I considered myself a liberal, a Pro-life, anti-gun Democrat is hardly a good choice for me.
Sadly, no one has ever run on a copyright/patent reform platform.
There are some pretty bright lines when it comes to ideology. Someone who supports Barack Obama for the Presidency cannot reasonably call themselves a conservative, any more than a Bush supporter could reasonably describe themself as a liberal.
What if, policy aside, you think the Republican candidate was lying about his positions, or was doomed to failure in enacting them, or was too inept to implement in a non-destructive fashion, or was terrible for any number of other reasons unrelated to his conservative credentials? Or that he was liable to die at any moment and had picked the functional equivalent of a particularly stupid slime-mold as his running mate?
Speaking only for myself, I's sit the election out and wait for the next one. Or vote for a 3rd party candidate.
But, as a conservative, if you find yourself unhappy with the GOP candidate, endorsing/voting for the Democrat is hardly the solution.
Personally, I vote for the person that most accurately represents me on issues they will be able to affect. Example: A Pro-gun, pro-choice, pro-gold-fucking-standard congressman is unlikely to have any impact on actually bringing back the gold standard. What party is he? I could give a fuck. Meanwhile, if I considered myself a liberal, a Pro-life, anti-gun Democrat is hardly a good choice for me.
Sadly, no one has ever run on a copyright/patent reform platform.
You're a centrist, congrats, join the club, grab a beer. Mondays are hippy punching, on Tuesdays we bash fundies.
Speaking only for myself, I's sit the election out and wait for the next one. Or vote for a 3rd party candidate.
But, as a conservative, if you find yourself unhappy with the GOP candidate, endorsing/voting for the Democrat is hardly the solution.
So your saying that there is never a good enough reason to vote democrat?
Edit: Given that the US is a two party republic (It's virtually impossible for a third party to make a serious break into politics), you realize that you are effectivley advertising your support of a Monarchy right?
What?
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
Speaking only for myself, I's sit the election out and wait for the next one. Or vote for a 3rd party candidate.
But, as a conservative, if you find yourself unhappy with the GOP candidate, endorsing/voting for the Democrat is hardly the solution.
So your saying that there is never a good enough reason to vote democrat?
Edit: Given that the US is a two party republic (It's virtually impossible for a third party to make a serious break into politics), you realize that you are effectivley advertising your support of a Monarchy right?
What?
You have said that there is no reason to vote democrat.
Since third parties are doomed to fail (seriously. Lets not bullshit ourselves), this means that the republicans would (in your ideal world) attain a permanent majority.
As such, the position of "president" would rapidly move out of the hands of the people and into those of the party leaders much like that of succession of rule.
Further, Those with wealth and influence (E.G.: CEO's) would rapidly gain power as the republicans relinquish regulations on there industries, thue making them the equivilant of feudal nobility.
THIS is what you're personal values lead to.
Gaddez on
0
Options
Gabriel_Pitt(effective against Russian warships)Registered Userregular
Speaking only for myself, I's sit the election out and wait for the next one. Or vote for a 3rd party candidate.
But, as a conservative, if you find yourself unhappy with the GOP candidate, endorsing/voting for the Democrat is hardly the solution.
So your saying that there is never a good enough reason to vote democrat?
Edit: Given that the US is a two party republic (It's virtually impossible for a third party to make a serious break into politics), you realize that you are effectivley advertising your support of a Monarchy right?
What?
You _seriously_ didn't bother to put any thought at all into what the consequences of 'My party or nothing, no matter what' leads to?
Speaking only for myself, I's sit the election out and wait for the next one. Or vote for a 3rd party candidate.
But, as a conservative, if you find yourself unhappy with the GOP candidate, endorsing/voting for the Democrat is hardly the solution.
So your saying that there is never a good enough reason to vote democrat?
Edit: Given that the US is a two party republic (It's virtually impossible for a third party to make a serious break into politics), you realize that you are effectivley advertising your support of a Monarchy right?
What?
You have said that there is no reason to vote democrat.
Since third parties are doomed to fail (seriously. Lets not bullshit ourselves), this means that the republicans would (in your ideal world) attain a permanent majority.
As such, the position of "president" would rapidly move out of the hands of the people and into those of the party leaders much like that of succession of rule.
Further, Those with wealth and influence (E.G.: CEO's) would rapidly gain power as the republicans relinquish regulations on there industries, thue making them the equivilant of feudal nobility.
THIS is what you're personal values lead to.
o_O
Ummm, no, you're wrong.
There is a substantial gap in ideology in the conservative party. And lets not forget the last time we had a "permanent" majority in any real sense Andrew Jackson bitch slapped it and shat all over it. Our history, and the conservative party, points to this not being a real possibility.
Speaking only for myself, I's sit the election out and wait for the next one. Or vote for a 3rd party candidate.
But, as a conservative, if you find yourself unhappy with the GOP candidate, endorsing/voting for the Democrat is hardly the solution.
So your saying that there is never a good enough reason to vote democrat?
Edit: Given that the US is a two party republic (It's virtually impossible for a third party to make a serious break into politics), you realize that you are effectivley advertising your support of a Monarchy right?
What?
You have said that there is no reason to vote democrat.
Since third parties are doomed to fail (seriously. Lets not bullshit ourselves), this means that the republicans would (in your ideal world) attain a permanent majority.
As such, the position of "president" would rapidly move out of the hands of the people and into those of the party leaders much like that of succession of rule.
Further, Those with wealth and influence (E.G.: CEO's) would rapidly gain power as the republicans relinquish regulations on there industries, thue making them the equivilant of feudal nobility.
THIS is what you're personal values lead to.
What the fuck kind of
Look, when someone says something that you think is dumb, you don't have to twist it into apocalypse-crazytown to argue with it. Just say it's dumb. He merely stated that he would not vote for party A, but would consider C, D, etc as alternatives to party B. To which one could reasonably reply: "MM: I would feel like I was cheating myself if I chose not to vote for someone based only on their party and not their position."
I think that, by disregarding his choice to vote a third party, you are not painting an accurate picture of his personal values at all.
Speaking only for myself, I's sit the election out and wait for the next one. Or vote for a 3rd party candidate.
But, as a conservative, if you find yourself unhappy with the GOP candidate, endorsing/voting for the Democrat is hardly the solution.
So your saying that there is never a good enough reason to vote democrat?
Edit: Given that the US is a two party republic (It's virtually impossible for a third party to make a serious break into politics), you realize that you are effectivley advertising your support of a Monarchy right?
What?
You have said that there is no reason to vote democrat.
Since third parties are doomed to fail (seriously. Lets not bullshit ourselves), this means that the republicans would (in your ideal world) attain a permanent majority.
As such, the position of "president" would rapidly move out of the hands of the people and into those of the party leaders much like that of succession of rule.
Further, Those with wealth and influence (E.G.: CEO's) would rapidly gain power as the republicans relinquish regulations on there industries, thue making them the equivilant of feudal nobility.
THIS is what you're personal values lead to.
o_O
Ummm, no, you're wrong.
There is a substantial gap in ideology in the conservative party. And lets not forget the last time we had a "permanent" majority in any real sense Andrew Jackson bitch slapped it and shat all over it. Our history, and the conservative party, points to this not being a real possibility.
No, I'm writing out what the endgame of modern mans ideology would be if no one voted democrat and the republican's ran basicly unopposed until the crack of doom.
As to jackson: He didn't have to contend with a propaganda engine the likes of fox news.
Personally, I vote for the person that most accurately represents me on issues they will be able to affect. Example: A Pro-gun, pro-choice, pro-gold-fucking-standard congressman is unlikely to have any impact on actually bringing back the gold standard. What party is he? I could give a fuck. Meanwhile, if I considered myself a liberal, a Pro-life, anti-gun Democrat is hardly a good choice for me.
Sadly, no one has ever run on a copyright/patent reform platform.
Being pro-gold standard shows that you don't understand how work economies work, and that does end up having an impact.
Let's say you were sick, but you weren't sure why and you weren't sure how to treat it. You need to find a doctor who can properly diagnose and treat the problem.
Would you go to a doctor who rejected the germ theory of disease and who insisted that all diseases were caused by demonic possession, as long as you could be reasonably sure that he would not be allowed to perform an exorcism on you? Keep in mind that he still really, really wants to perform an exorcism on you. But other people won't let him.
Does the fact that he is being prevented from performing an exorcism make his rejection of germ theory okay?
Also, keep in mind that you might not even be infected by germs. You might have cancer. So would you insist that his views on germs is completely irrelevant?
Not necessarily. I'm sure his libertarian bias creeps into his analysis, but Bryan Caplan's book goes into how people can be and are systematically irrational about economic and political policy, but not necessarily so on an individual level. That is, people recognize when shit doesn't work out when they're personally involved. The larger economy and political situation, and all the inputs and outputs and all that, are so far removed that people can pretty easily keep supporting the same thing that doesn't work and never feel the burn of failure. They just blame "didn't do [my preferred thing enough]" or say "[policy I don't like] fucked everything up" or whatever. Or they simply fail to see if there has been any particular change, or they believe their anecdotal experience is representative, or...
But more personal stuff is very different. People may very well be stupid, but they're far more likely to learn to be smarter after they are punished by failure and mishap.
That sounds like a thinly excuse to give the right to vote almost exclusively to the rich and powerful, who by sheer coincidence happen to be mostly white, since the rich and the powerful have the biggest personal stake in the economy and therefore the greatest incentive to be rational. I mean, seriously. If someone writes a book advocating increased voting rights for certain people and decreased voting rights for others, then it doesn't take a genius to figure out who he's referring to.
Yes, people might be less rational when the consequences of their actions are far removed from the action itself. But that has absolutely nothing to do with public sphere vs. private sphere. In prisoner's dilemma and collective action scenarios, people can end up making things worse for themselves because they focus on their own self-interest. Then you have things like investment bubbles and genuine con games that pray on the opportunistic.
The New Deal had to be created because the general population was making personal decisions about the economy that made the economy worse. And that sometimes requires an external solution. i.e., if unemployment is high, then it seems rational to be willing to work longer hours for less people. But at a certain point, you run out of available hours, you continue to have high unemployment (because businesses can get by on hiring fewer employees), and you don't have much money circulating in the economy to pump up demand. So the government comes along and introduces things like minimum wage and overtime laws.
I'm guessing that Caplan disagrees with the assessment that minimum wage and overtime laws are helpful, which means that he would disagree with the point I'm trying to make on how governments are sometimes necessary. To him, I would probably be one of the "irrational" people undeserving of a vote. And that's what makes him a douche-bag.
Personally, I vote for the person that most accurately represents me on issues they will be able to affect. Example: A Pro-gun, pro-choice, pro-gold-fucking-standard congressman is unlikely to have any impact on actually bringing back the gold standard. What party is he? I could give a fuck. Meanwhile, if I considered myself a liberal, a Pro-life, anti-gun Democrat is hardly a good choice for me.
Sadly, no one has ever run on a copyright/patent reform platform.
Being pro-gold standard shows that you don't understand how work economies work, and that does end up having an impact.
Would you go to a doctor who thought that all diseases could be cured by bloodletting and exorcism, as long as you were reasonably certain that he would never perform either of those procedures on you?
Well we would have to assume that this man was, despite his failings, a specialist in a serious ailment, from which I suffered, and that I had no other options. Obviously I would be willing to make a few concessions on the quality of my care if I didn't have to receive it from a homeopathic witch-doctor. The weight of my concern for the damage they may cause vs the damage they can prevent/repair would determine my vote.
GS was just an example of an undesirable ideology mixed in with those I support. I've never been put in a situation where I had to seriously consider the ramifications of voting for such a person; but I will try to do so now. Know that I assume the follow:
I specifically said congressional rep because they have less overall power, I would be far more leery of a Senator who felt that way. I do not trust my reps to make financially competent decisions, for non-political reasons, to begin with. If a project will bring more funding to their district, I think they will more than likely vote for it. If it doesn't I expect them to vote with their political ideology, or that of their financiers, more than their personal economic competency. In those scenarios I wouldn't expect a few GS votes to greatly influence the overall outcome.
Now if there was already a viable contingent of these people in place, that would cause me more concern, and I would weight my voting preference more strongly against them.
Would I trade a risk of GS economic taint in the current congress in exchange for a rep with an actual IT or E. Engineering background and a desire to take a hard look at the DMCA? Sure, absolutely. But that's a hypothetical, and lacks the nuances of reality. If that day ever comes there could be some other factor I've not considered, in the course of writing this, and wind up hating the guy.
Only a man like Beck could turn "don't take everything you hear as fact" and "A lot of useful information just gets lost in the background noise" as an evil plot to silence Amerikuns.
He said neither of those things
he said that Obama talked about information being worthless and obama declaring war on fox
Which was stupid and absolutely not what Obama said, but it also isn't what you said.
Don't twist their words, some of you are looking like crazies
No, he didn't say it. He just leads people down the path to that conclusion and says "I'm not saying it's an evil plot to silence americans, but, well, draw your own conclusions"
Which is what he always does, it's his thing. Hence the whole "Did Glenn Beck Rape and Murder a Girl in 1990?" thing.
Only a man like Beck could turn "don't take everything you hear as fact" and "A lot of useful information just gets lost in the background noise" as an evil plot to silence Amerikuns.
He said neither of those things
he said that Obama talked about information being worthless and obama declaring war on fox
Which was stupid and absolutely not what Obama said, but it also isn't what you said.
Don't twist their words, some of you are looking like crazies
No, he didn't say it. He just leads people down the path to that conclusion and says "I'm not saying it's an evil plot to silence americans, but, well, draw your own conclusions"
Which is what he always does, it's his thing. Hence the whole "Did Glenn Beck Rape and Murder a Girl in 1990?" thing.
Exactly, and it makes him maddeningly hard to actually pin anything on, because he always maintains that degree of separation.
Not necessarily. I'm sure his libertarian bias creeps into his analysis, but Bryan Caplan's book goes into how people can be and are systematically irrational about economic and political policy, but not necessarily so on an individual level. That is, people recognize when shit doesn't work out when they're personally involved. The larger economy and political situation, and all the inputs and outputs and all that, are so far removed that people can pretty easily keep supporting the same thing that doesn't work and never feel the burn of failure. They just blame "didn't do [my preferred thing enough]" or say "[policy I don't like] fucked everything up" or whatever. Or they simply fail to see if there has been any particular change, or they believe their anecdotal experience is representative, or...
But more personal stuff is very different. People may very well be stupid, but they're far more likely to learn to be smarter after they are punished by failure and mishap.
That sounds like a thinly excuse to give the right to vote almost exclusively to the rich and powerful, who by sheer coincidence happen to be mostly white, since the rich and the powerful have the biggest personal stake in the economy and therefore the greatest incentive to be rational. I mean, seriously. If someone writes a book advocating increased voting rights for certain people and decreased voting rights for others, then it doesn't take a genius to figure out who he's referring to.
Yes, people might be less rational when the consequences of their actions are far removed from the action itself. But that has absolutely nothing to do with public sphere vs. private sphere. In prisoner's dilemma and collective action scenarios, people can end up making things worse for themselves because they focus on their own self-interest. Then you have things like investment bubbles and genuine con games that pray on the opportunistic.
The New Deal had to be created because the general population was making personal decisions about the economy that made the economy worse. And that sometimes requires an external solution. i.e., if unemployment is high, then it seems rational to be willing to work longer hours for less people. But at a certain point, you run out of available hours, you continue to have high unemployment (because businesses can get by on hiring fewer employees), and you don't have much money circulating in the economy to pump up demand. So the government comes along and introduces things like minimum wage and overtime laws.
I'm guessing that Caplan disagrees with the assessment that minimum wage and overtime laws are helpful, which means that he would disagree with the point I'm trying to make on how governments are sometimes necessary. To him, I would probably be one of the "irrational" people undeserving of a vote. And that's what makes him a douche-bag.
I myself would prefer the vote to be restricted to educated people, but I understand that's unlikely to ever happen. I don't recall what Caplan's suggested solutions are. IIRC, the book is long on criticism, short on solutions. I believe he mentioned restricted voting in passing, but did not advocate it.
I'm afraid I don't understand the relevance of the second or third paragraphs you wrote. I understand the contend, but don't see how they're related to people voting irrationally, and supporting irrational policies. I fear this may indicate that I misunderstood your first paragraph. If so, I apologize, and if you have the time, please clarify. I fear may be missing or overlooking something obvious.
I think that Caplan, like most economists, recognizes that there are some things that are desired in certain cases over efficiency. A certain minimum standard of living, for example, or certain minimum standards of conditions. I think he is more likely to find people irrational who believe in policies and associated outcomes that are simply wrong, rather than holding preferences that he disagrees with. I may be projecting though, and giving him too much credit. At the same time though, I'd prefer that people--you and I, for example--know about actual positions before we start calling people douche-bags over perceived sleights. I myself don't really like minimum wages and would prefer that we just have straight up welfare for the people who need it. But at the same time, I don't really care and don't have a big dog in that fight.
Fox News commentator Glenn Beck and Tea Party heroine Sarah Palin told an audience yesterday in Alaska that the U.S. has grown complacent about protecting itself since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
“I fear that we are forgetting what it takes,” Beck told about 4,000 at a convention center in Anchorage. “How do we not make the same mistake again?”
Palin, a former Alaska governor and the 2008 Republican vice presidential nominee, pointed the blame at President Barack Obama.
“It starts from the top,” she said. “Those who kind of set the tone in our country that would lead us towards a complacency that is very, very, very dangerous. I fear that is why we are seeing the patterns we’re seeing right now, especially over the last 20 months.”
Complacency somehow stops the new reinforced doors on airplanes from working properly?
After she gave a brief speech at a Sept. 11 commemoration in her hometown of Wasilla, Alaska, several in the audience approached her to encourage her to run for president in 2012.
“Bless your heart,” she told one man.
Does she know that "bless your heart" is the polite Southern equivalent of "you are a fucking moron?"
But the actual shit that is stopping another 9/11 like reinforced cockpit doors, improved airport security, and etc. isn't just going to suddenly disappear because we stop remembering 9/11.
But the actual shit that is stopping another 9/11 like reinforced cockpit doors, improved airport security, and etc. isn't just going to suddenly disappear because we stop remembering 9/11.
Its all bullshit to begin with. No one has stopped remembering its 9/11 and its not like the president is out there telling people "eh no biggie".
The right is just scared that their boogie man might wear out.
But the actual shit that is stopping another 9/11 like reinforced cockpit doors, improved airport security, and etc. isn't just going to suddenly disappear because we stop remembering 9/11.
To be fair, that's not the only terrorist tactic, which I'm charitably allowing that Palin/Beck might realize. But the national security state has been ridiculously expanded in the last decade and the Obama administration has continued/endorsed most of it.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
0
Options
VariableMouth CongressStroke Me Lady FameRegistered Userregular
edited September 2010
what patterns have we seen in the last 20 months? I haven't been paying attention.
I'm worried because things are very, very, very dangerous.
But the actual shit that is stopping another 9/11 like reinforced cockpit doors, improved airport security, and etc. isn't just going to suddenly disappear because we stop remembering 9/11.
Its all bullshit to begin with. No one has stopped remembering its 9/11 and its not like the president is out there telling people "eh no biggie".
The right is just scared that their boogie man might wear out.
Also, since when did the average person not constantly remembering 9/11 suddenly stop the law enforcement agencies from doing their job? Do we really think that they suck at their jobs so much that unless it is constantly in the public's eye, they won't do anything about potential attacks?
Obama has also recently gotten rid of the terrorist repelling rock.
But the actual shit that is stopping another 9/11 like reinforced cockpit doors, improved airport security, and etc. isn't just going to suddenly disappear because we stop remembering 9/11.
Its all bullshit to begin with. No one has stopped remembering its 9/11 and its not like the president is out there telling people "eh no biggie".
The right is just scared that their boogie man might wear out.
We're just now wrapping up the paperwork on that failed Times Square car bomb.
Yes, terrorism is a boogie man. Including 9/11 more than 100 times more people have died in this country this decade in car accidents than due to terrorism. Ban automobiles!
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
“Let me tell you, folks, it’s a brutal, leftist-dominated lamestream media world out there,” Mrs. Palin
Mrs. Palin vacated after about 20 minutes, leaving the stage to Mr. Beck and his trademark chalkboard – actually two – for close to 90 minutes. He gesticulated, shouted out his main points and touched on the familiar Beck hodge-podge of history and humorous asides. He wept (another Beck trademark) while speaking of his daughter, Mary, who has cerebral palsy.
He ridiculed critics who questioned what his “message” was at the August rally. “What was the message of 8/28?” he asked, and then answered himself. “You are the leader,” he said. “Stop looking for leaders. And start looking inside yourself.”
But the actual shit that is stopping another 9/11 like reinforced cockpit doors, improved airport security, and etc. isn't just going to suddenly disappear because we stop remembering 9/11.
Its all bullshit to begin with. No one has stopped remembering its 9/11 and its not like the president is out there telling people "eh no biggie".
The right is just scared that their boogie man might wear out.
We're just now wrapping up the paperwork on that failed Times Square car bomb.
Yes, terrorism is a boogie man. Including 9/11 more than 100 times more people have died in this country this decade in car accidents than due to terrorism. Ban automobiles!
Yeah that doesn't exactly work. Most autombile deaths are accidents not people setting out to kill you, it's not the same.
Furthermore auto traffic is needed as a nation, terror attacks are not.
I'm being ridiculous to make a point. We dramatically overreacted and did most of Al Qaeda's work for them.
Kinda. One of the wars we started was correct, the other was not. We've also had our eyes opened. ME nations have been dealing with this sort of mess for a while, and Europe is just starting to. This was our first real taste of it.
We've freaked out and tossed out our own rights, and commited many crimes, true. But perhaps knowing what is possible had pulled our heads out of our asses.
He ridiculed critics who questioned what his “message” was at the August rally. “What was the message of 8/28?” he asked, and then answered himself. “You are the leader,” he said. “Stop looking for leaders. And start looking inside yourself.”
Was anything even vaguely said about that during their last shindig?
Also, nice on Beck and Palin to swear up and down that the 9/11 date was just a coincidence and then hyperventilating about 9/11.
Europe, especially the UK, has been dealing with this shit for decades.
And wow they haven't collapsed yet.
I propose we declare a war on slippery bathtubs! Far more deadly.
We've lost around 200,000 people to coal related respiratory ailments since 9/11. Imagine if we'd focused a trillion dollars on green energy instead of dump trucking it in the desert?
Yeah that doesn't exactly work. Most autombile deaths are accidents not people setting out to kill you, it's not the same.
Furthermore auto traffic is needed as a nation, terror attacks are not.
While this is true, a damned lot of accidents are due to fundamental infrastructure problems which could be readily fixed if we had our priorities in line. Oddly enough, crazy fuckers overseas can often be prevented with healthier priorities, though yes it is still very different.
But the actual shit that is stopping another 9/11 like reinforced cockpit doors, improved airport security, and etc. isn't just going to suddenly disappear because we stop remembering 9/11.
Its all bullshit to begin with. No one has stopped remembering its 9/11 and its not like the president is out there telling people "eh no biggie".
The right is just scared that their boogie man might wear out.
We're just now wrapping up the paperwork on that failed Times Square car bomb.
Yes, terrorism is a boogie man. Including 9/11 more than 100 times more people have died in this country this decade in car accidents than due to terrorism. Ban automobiles!
Just like more people commit suicide yearly than died in the 9/11 attack.
BECK: Scratching the surface of the civil rights movement. What is it? What was it? What is it really all about? Versus what progressives and radicals now want you to think it was all about.
Individual rights. Individual rights. You have a right to be free. You have a — a right to live your life. You have a right to not be harassed.
You have a right to your — your life and your liberty and your pursuit of happiness. That's what this country has always been about, but it is always been flawed. And we've never quite achieved it.
Before we start going backwards, let's — let's take a look at it again, what we're striving for. Let me show you how the movement in the 1960s has been perverted and distorted.
We've got folks like the Reverend Al Sharpton telling people that Martin Luther King's dream was really about redistribution of wealth.
What. The civil rights movement fully approved of government intervention in order to ensure collective rights. For example, the civil rights legislation to require businesses not to discriminate.
* Don't let anybody make you think God chose America as his divine messianic force to be a sort of policeman of the whole world. God has a way of standing before the nations with justice and it seems I can hear God saying to America "you are too arrogant, and if you don't change your ways, I will rise up and break the backbone of your power, and I will place it in the hands of a nation that doesn't even know my name. Be still and know that I'm God. Men will beat their swords into plowshafts and their spears into pruning hooks, and nations shall not rise up against nations, neither shall they study war anymore." I don't know about you, I ain't going to study war anymore.
* Communism forgets that life is individual. Capitalism forgets that life is social, and the kingdom of brotherhood is found neither in the thesis of communism nor the antithesis of capitalism but in a higher synthesis. It is found in a higher synthesis that combines the truths of both. Now, when I say question the whole society, it means ultimately coming to see that the problem of racism, the problem of exploitation, and the problem of war are all tied together. These are the triple evils that are interrelated.
Europe, especially the UK, has been dealing with this shit for decades.
And wow they haven't collapsed yet.
I propose we declare a war on slippery bathtubs! Far more deadly.
We've lost around 200,000 people to coal related respiratory ailments since 9/11. Imagine if we'd focused a trillion dollars on green energy instead of dump trucking it in the desert?
Or drunk driving. Or any number of other roadside fatalities, really. I just like the idea of a war on being stupid and getting really buzzed while behind a 2 ton automobile.
Europe, especially the UK, has been dealing with this shit for decades.
And wow they haven't collapsed yet.
I propose we declare a war on slippery bathtubs! Far more deadly.
We've lost around 200,000 people to coal related respiratory ailments since 9/11. Imagine if we'd focused a trillion dollars on green energy instead of dump trucking it in the desert?
Or drunk driving. Or any number of other roadside fatalities, really. I just like the idea of a war on being stupid and getting really buzzed while behind a 2 ton automobile.
We already have MAD which is an organization dedicated to milking every last buck out of the drunk driving boogeyman. It's hit the point where they have to keep fear mongering just to stay in existance because they do make nice cash of that issue.
Posts
Sadly, no one has ever run on a copyright/patent reform platform.
You're a centrist, congrats, join the club, grab a beer. Mondays are hippy punching, on Tuesdays we bash fundies.
Rigorous Scholarship
You have said that there is no reason to vote democrat.
Since third parties are doomed to fail (seriously. Lets not bullshit ourselves), this means that the republicans would (in your ideal world) attain a permanent majority.
As such, the position of "president" would rapidly move out of the hands of the people and into those of the party leaders much like that of succession of rule.
Further, Those with wealth and influence (E.G.: CEO's) would rapidly gain power as the republicans relinquish regulations on there industries, thue making them the equivilant of feudal nobility.
THIS is what you're personal values lead to.
o_O
Ummm, no, you're wrong.
There is a substantial gap in ideology in the conservative party. And lets not forget the last time we had a "permanent" majority in any real sense Andrew Jackson bitch slapped it and shat all over it. Our history, and the conservative party, points to this not being a real possibility.
Look, when someone says something that you think is dumb, you don't have to twist it into apocalypse-crazytown to argue with it. Just say it's dumb. He merely stated that he would not vote for party A, but would consider C, D, etc as alternatives to party B. To which one could reasonably reply: "MM: I would feel like I was cheating myself if I chose not to vote for someone based only on their party and not their position."
I think that, by disregarding his choice to vote a third party, you are not painting an accurate picture of his personal values at all.
No, I'm writing out what the endgame of modern mans ideology would be if no one voted democrat and the republican's ran basicly unopposed until the crack of doom.
As to jackson: He didn't have to contend with a propaganda engine the likes of fox news.
Being pro-gold standard shows that you don't understand how work economies work, and that does end up having an impact.
Let's say you were sick, but you weren't sure why and you weren't sure how to treat it. You need to find a doctor who can properly diagnose and treat the problem.
Would you go to a doctor who rejected the germ theory of disease and who insisted that all diseases were caused by demonic possession, as long as you could be reasonably sure that he would not be allowed to perform an exorcism on you? Keep in mind that he still really, really wants to perform an exorcism on you. But other people won't let him.
Does the fact that he is being prevented from performing an exorcism make his rejection of germ theory okay?
Also, keep in mind that you might not even be infected by germs. You might have cancer. So would you insist that his views on germs is completely irrelevant?
That sounds like a thinly excuse to give the right to vote almost exclusively to the rich and powerful, who by sheer coincidence happen to be mostly white, since the rich and the powerful have the biggest personal stake in the economy and therefore the greatest incentive to be rational. I mean, seriously. If someone writes a book advocating increased voting rights for certain people and decreased voting rights for others, then it doesn't take a genius to figure out who he's referring to.
Yes, people might be less rational when the consequences of their actions are far removed from the action itself. But that has absolutely nothing to do with public sphere vs. private sphere. In prisoner's dilemma and collective action scenarios, people can end up making things worse for themselves because they focus on their own self-interest. Then you have things like investment bubbles and genuine con games that pray on the opportunistic.
The New Deal had to be created because the general population was making personal decisions about the economy that made the economy worse. And that sometimes requires an external solution. i.e., if unemployment is high, then it seems rational to be willing to work longer hours for less people. But at a certain point, you run out of available hours, you continue to have high unemployment (because businesses can get by on hiring fewer employees), and you don't have much money circulating in the economy to pump up demand. So the government comes along and introduces things like minimum wage and overtime laws.
I'm guessing that Caplan disagrees with the assessment that minimum wage and overtime laws are helpful, which means that he would disagree with the point I'm trying to make on how governments are sometimes necessary. To him, I would probably be one of the "irrational" people undeserving of a vote. And that's what makes him a douche-bag.
Well we would have to assume that this man was, despite his failings, a specialist in a serious ailment, from which I suffered, and that I had no other options. Obviously I would be willing to make a few concessions on the quality of my care if I didn't have to receive it from a homeopathic witch-doctor. The weight of my concern for the damage they may cause vs the damage they can prevent/repair would determine my vote.
GS was just an example of an undesirable ideology mixed in with those I support. I've never been put in a situation where I had to seriously consider the ramifications of voting for such a person; but I will try to do so now. Know that I assume the follow:
I specifically said congressional rep because they have less overall power, I would be far more leery of a Senator who felt that way. I do not trust my reps to make financially competent decisions, for non-political reasons, to begin with. If a project will bring more funding to their district, I think they will more than likely vote for it. If it doesn't I expect them to vote with their political ideology, or that of their financiers, more than their personal economic competency. In those scenarios I wouldn't expect a few GS votes to greatly influence the overall outcome.
Now if there was already a viable contingent of these people in place, that would cause me more concern, and I would weight my voting preference more strongly against them.
Would I trade a risk of GS economic taint in the current congress in exchange for a rep with an actual IT or E. Engineering background and a desire to take a hard look at the DMCA? Sure, absolutely. But that's a hypothetical, and lacks the nuances of reality. If that day ever comes there could be some other factor I've not considered, in the course of writing this, and wind up hating the guy.
No, he didn't say it. He just leads people down the path to that conclusion and says "I'm not saying it's an evil plot to silence americans, but, well, draw your own conclusions"
Which is what he always does, it's his thing. Hence the whole "Did Glenn Beck Rape and Murder a Girl in 1990?" thing.
Exactly, and it makes him maddeningly hard to actually pin anything on, because he always maintains that degree of separation.
I myself would prefer the vote to be restricted to educated people, but I understand that's unlikely to ever happen. I don't recall what Caplan's suggested solutions are. IIRC, the book is long on criticism, short on solutions. I believe he mentioned restricted voting in passing, but did not advocate it.
I'm afraid I don't understand the relevance of the second or third paragraphs you wrote. I understand the contend, but don't see how they're related to people voting irrationally, and supporting irrational policies. I fear this may indicate that I misunderstood your first paragraph. If so, I apologize, and if you have the time, please clarify. I fear may be missing or overlooking something obvious.
I think that Caplan, like most economists, recognizes that there are some things that are desired in certain cases over efficiency. A certain minimum standard of living, for example, or certain minimum standards of conditions. I think he is more likely to find people irrational who believe in policies and associated outcomes that are simply wrong, rather than holding preferences that he disagrees with. I may be projecting though, and giving him too much credit. At the same time though, I'd prefer that people--you and I, for example--know about actual positions before we start calling people douche-bags over perceived sleights. I myself don't really like minimum wages and would prefer that we just have straight up welfare for the people who need it. But at the same time, I don't really care and don't have a big dog in that fight.
Does she know that "bless your heart" is the polite Southern equivalent of "you are a fucking moron?"
I don't think that's what she meant. This country has a history of being ADD and having a short term memory once whatever disaster goes away.
Its all bullshit to begin with. No one has stopped remembering its 9/11 and its not like the president is out there telling people "eh no biggie".
The right is just scared that their boogie man might wear out.
To be fair, that's not the only terrorist tactic, which I'm charitably allowing that Palin/Beck might realize. But the national security state has been ridiculously expanded in the last decade and the Obama administration has continued/endorsed most of it.
I'm worried because things are very, very, very dangerous.
Black men named Hussein have been spotted in the White House!
Boogie man?
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/sep/09/world/la-fg-pakistan-terror-20100909
We're just now wrapping up the paperwork on that failed Times Square car bomb.
Obama has also recently gotten rid of the terrorist repelling rock.
Yes, terrorism is a boogie man. Including 9/11 more than 100 times more people have died in this country this decade in car accidents than due to terrorism. Ban automobiles!
Yeah that doesn't exactly work. Most autombile deaths are accidents not people setting out to kill you, it's not the same.
Furthermore auto traffic is needed as a nation, terror attacks are not.
Kinda. One of the wars we started was correct, the other was not. We've also had our eyes opened. ME nations have been dealing with this sort of mess for a while, and Europe is just starting to. This was our first real taste of it.
We've freaked out and tossed out our own rights, and commited many crimes, true. But perhaps knowing what is possible had pulled our heads out of our asses.
and they're much better at it than us, to boot
Was anything even vaguely said about that during their last shindig?
Also, nice on Beck and Palin to swear up and down that the 9/11 date was just a coincidence and then hyperventilating about 9/11.
And wow they haven't collapsed yet.
I propose we declare a war on slippery bathtubs! Far more deadly.
We've lost around 200,000 people to coal related respiratory ailments since 9/11. Imagine if we'd focused a trillion dollars on green energy instead of dump trucking it in the desert?
While this is true, a damned lot of accidents are due to fundamental infrastructure problems which could be readily fixed if we had our priorities in line. Oddly enough, crazy fuckers overseas can often be prevented with healthier priorities, though yes it is still very different.
Just like more people commit suicide yearly than died in the 9/11 attack.
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1292
Basically, Beck is full of shit.
Or drunk driving. Or any number of other roadside fatalities, really. I just like the idea of a war on being stupid and getting really buzzed while behind a 2 ton automobile.
We already have MAD which is an organization dedicated to milking every last buck out of the drunk driving boogeyman. It's hit the point where they have to keep fear mongering just to stay in existance because they do make nice cash of that issue.