Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[RedKing]

Play nice, kids.

[SalmonGod]

That will happen either way.  If you remove government controls, it only means the wealthy don't need to worry about usurping the government anymore.  Wealth will still snowball, and other methods of crushing competition become available when the government method is removed.  This is why I'm an anarchist.  We can pendulum back and forth for eternity, and we'll never get a desirable result. 

Given a choice between two directions in the meantime, I'd rather stay on the side that is at least ostensibly supposed to be about serving the people, instead of 100% ruthless winner-take-all-and-losers-can-go-die competition.  That way when it is proven that the system has been sabotaged, there is the slimmest potential for people to organize on the basis of a common idea.  At least when things suck, everyone knows it's because something is broken.  On the other side everything can simultaneously suck but also be working exactly how it's supposed to even in theory, which thins the sociological glue of common understanding necessary for change.

Yet without the many government imposed barriers to entry, entrenched wealth would only last so long as it's possessor was capable with it (Shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in three generations and so on). It's pretty damn easy to hold onto your wealth when your stock investments are basically guaranteed to go up by the Central Bank, your companies shielded from competition by high entry costs, and your bank grows by default because it's the first to receive cash from the Central Bank (meaning it gets the benefit of however many billion dollars, and the inflation doesn't kick in until some other chump receives it). Plus, if despite all this things go sour, you have nothing to fear because the government will pay you back for your losses should you be in danger of, god forbid, failing! Hell, if you're a bank in a "progressive" country, the government will promptly drop everything else and fleece it's unfortunate population for tax revenue on your behalf! Furthermore, when the economy is on the brink and things are looking bad, the fellows within the government will prioritize what will get them reelected above what might help; hence, you end up with passionate arguments about cutting a few million or hundred million from a budget of trillions, or else argue about things like the income tax on the richest 1% (which won't affect the absolute richest and most powerful anyway because THEY make money through investments and effective tax shelters like Berkshire Hathaway).

Yeah... just like you said, the system has been sabotaged.  All you've done here is point out specific indicators that the government has been usurped, and turned against its intended purpose.  And those who have the resources to spare will always dedicate some to the making sure things are that way.  It's a dumb set-up that is doomed to fail repeatedly, but at least it provides people some channel for collective struggle.  That's really the only difference.  On the one hand, you have some means for people to pool their resources and have a chance of sticking up for themselves.  On the other hand, you have get rich or be subjugated by the rich and that's it.

As for your claim about the longevity of entrenched wealth, I don't see it.  Those who own the world's resources impose conditions for the rest of the world to partake of those resources, and they structure those conditions to be in their favor.  That's how wealth entrenches itself.  Whether they do that through influencing the government or through ruthless business tactics doesn't really matter.  Actually, it does matter, because the average person has some theoretical voice in one, but not the other.  Competition can challenge entrenched wealth, but so can a determined political movement.

If market competition were really so good at weeding out corruption while rewarding hard work and innovation, then Nikola Tesla wouldn't have perished destitute and forgotten, and elementary schools wouldn't teach children that Thomas Edison was the greatest inventor in American history.

[Trollheiming]

Brought to heel? Your mentality is a litte vicious and petty.

And this, gentlemen, is why we can't have nice things.  Liberals can't even make positive statements without it being strawmanned into absurd parodies of normative morality.

And it's pretty endemic of the conservative movement as a whole.  Anybody remember when Obama said the best revenge is voting and Romney said all Obama voters wanted was revenge against america?

"Brought to heel" is strong wording--not dispassionate, bland, and merely descriptive. It strongly implies that someone is doing something excessive. That's a value judgment, you know.

I'm pretty sure that paraphase isn't what Romney said. Romney said not to vote for revenge, but for love of country. Revenge is a pretty bad reason to vote, particularly against a challenger who hasn't even had his hands on the wheel for four years.

Meanwhile... back in the America that did vote for the man who never created a business, and who spent his life in politics, the economy is heading toward yet another recession. Damn George Bush!

[SalmonGod]

Umm... double-post because forum is acting weird....

[mainiac]

I'm pretty sure that paraphase isn't what Romney said. Romney said not to vote for revenge, but for love of country. Revenge is a pretty bad reason to vote, particularly against a challenger who hasn't even had his hands on the wheel for four years.

Romney's own ad: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShdiYQ1EHvA
"The president asked his supporters to vote for revenge."

"Brought to heel" is strong wording--not dispassionate, bland, and merely descriptive. It strongly implies that someone is doing something excessive. That's a value judgment, you know.

No, it was a positive statement and I know it because they are my words and your version is a complete non-sequitur for the conversation I was commenting on.

[Trollheiming]

I'm pretty sure that paraphase isn't what Romney said. Romney said not to vote for revenge, but for love of country.

Romney's own ad: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShdiYQ1EHvA
"The president asked his supporters to vote for revenge."

"The president asked his supporters to vote for revenge" is mostly true. He did have an exchange similar to that with a supporter in a rally. The ad doesn't say, however, "the president asked his supporters to vote for revenge against America." You added that part yourself. And you know that you added that part. And you know that's the part that I found incorrect.

"Brought to heel" is strong wording--not dispassionate, bland, and merely descriptive. It strongly implies that someone is doing something excessive. That's a value judgment, you know.

No, it was a positive statement and I know it because they are my words and your version is a complete non-sequitur for the conversation I was commenting on.

The moon is made of cheese. -- positive
The moon is far away. -- normative

The rich all have monocles and top hats. -- positive
The rich have excessive wealth. -- normative

Brought to heel, if examined in its usual contexts, strongly connotes an immoral excess that is curbed. By referencing the Gilded Age and using the phrase "brought to heel" you sarcastically implied that the problem with the Gilded Age was that the rich weren't brought to heel by the poor. Else, what would the point have been?

[mainiac]

Brought to heel, if examined in its usual contexts, strongly connotes an immoral excess that is curbed. By referencing the Gilded Age and using the phrase "brought to heel" you sarcastically implied that the problem with the Gilded Age was that the rich weren't brought to heel by the poor. Else, what would the point have been?

Well here's a really radical idea.  You could take the literal meaning of my words.

"The president asked his supporters to vote for revenge" is mostly true. He did have an exchange similar to that with a supporter in a rally. The ad doesn't say, however, "the president asked his supporters to vote for revenge against America." You added that part yourself. And you know that you added that part. And you know that's the part that I found incorrect.

No, the part I found incorrect was where you said that he did not say what he literally said.  And no I didn't know you took offense at that part; the "against america" part was used so commonly by conservative pundits I didn't even know it was supposed to be on the down low.

[Nadaka]

You say that liberals have no solutions and conservatives do.

Individual liberty is served by social and economic justice. Libertarians claim to promote liberty, but when their policies inevitably lead to a system that disenfranchises the majority of people and makes the ability to express rights so grievously unequal, then they are not truly promoting liberty.

Sorry, but right now the conservative solution is destroy America and return to more conservative times when the plutocrats had absolute liberty to rape, pillage, maim and kill in the name of their god, money or just for kicks and everyone owed fealty to them for the privileged of bondage.

[Trollheiming]

Brought to heel, if examined in its usual contexts, strongly connotes an immoral excess that is curbed. By referencing the Gilded Age and using the phrase "brought to heel" you sarcastically implied that the problem with the Gilded Age was that the rich weren't brought to heel by the poor. Else, what would the point have been?

Well here's a really radical idea.  You could take the literal meaning of my words.

"The president asked his supporters to vote for revenge" is mostly true. He did have an exchange similar to that with a supporter in a rally. The ad doesn't say, however, "the president asked his supporters to vote for revenge against America." You added that part yourself. And you know that you added that part. And you know that's the part that I found incorrect.

No, the part I found incorrect was where you said that he did not say what he literally said.  And no I didn't know you took offense at that part; the "against america" part was used so commonly by conservative pundits I didn't even know it was supposed to be on the down low.

So now, whatever fringe liberal pundits say is also what Obama says? That's your standard? Really?

"Romney said all Obama voters wanted was revenge against america" is your exact statement. Not conservative pundits. Romney. It's wrong.

I never said that Romney didn't characterize Obama as wanting voters to vote for revenge. He did. We all know that he did, and we know that the characterization was mostly true. It's bizarre, but it's true that Obama said similar words at a rally. You added a part that greatly changes the tone and meaning of Romney's response. Whereas it was directed at Obama, and questioning revenge as a good motive for voting; now in your version, it is directed at rank-and-file voters and imputing that they really did vote for revenge--which takes the absurdity of voting as a form of vengeance and transfers the bizarre concept from Obama's mind, where it was birthed, and into Romney's mind, who firmly rejected the concept and said so immediately. That's too far from the original meaning. And that isn't even touching the fact that you added against America.

But this topic has become immorally excessive, so let us bring it to heel, shall we?

[mainiac]

So now, whatever fringe liberal pundits say is also what Obama says? That's your standard? Really?

For a conversation started by me complaining about you putting words in my mouth it's almost surprising it took this long for you to get here.

I never said that Romney didn't characterize Obama as wanting voters to vote for revenge.

Romney said not to vote for revenge, but for love of country.

[RedKing]

Can we ratchet down the hyperbole on both sides just a smidge? I'm pretty sure most conservatives aren't actually attempting to bring about the return of feudalism.

_Yet.


Also, while I had initially decided against a rule about arguing semantics (because sometimes semantics *is* important), this particular argument is getting old really fast. Since I don't want to steal Aqizzar's hound dog, let me introduce a new thread denizen, the HellNo Kitty:



Don't make her show up too frequently, I'd rather not have to lock the thread.

[Trollheiming]

You say that liberals have no solutions and conservatives do.

Individual liberty is served by social and economic justice. Libertarians claim to promote liberty, but when their policies inevitably lead to a system that disenfranchises the majority of people and makes the ability to express rights so grievously unequal, then they are not truly promoting liberty.

Sorry, but right now the conservative solution is destroy America and return to more conservative times when the plutocrats had absolute liberty to rape, pillage, maim and kill in the name of their god, money or just for kicks and everyone owed fealty to them for the privileged of bondage.

So now, what rights can't be expressed by ordinary people today in America?

There are many assertions up there that I can't agree with. The least of them is this persistent view of all history as a class struggle between rich and poor. You know, until the renaissance, wealthy burghers were even less protected from the depredations of lords than serfs. Money and economic wealth bowed to the sword, and burghers weren't allowed to send their sons to court to learn chivalry and knighthood, no matter their wealth. The history of the world is hella more complicated than this simplistic view that rich people have always sought to dominate the poor. I don't see that throughout history, and I don't see that today.

Today, I went out and ate a killer plate of Beijing-sauced Shredded Meat. I've been in the expensive restaurants and the food is usually pretty to look at, but unsatisfying to actually consume--yet find yourself a hole-in-the-wall eatery with a good repeat custom and get your socks knocked off. We're living the good life, and we're not millionaires. What do we truly lack in this life, other than leadership that wishes to unite us, rather than divide us?

[GlyphGryph]

Well, what do you do for work? Because at the rate things are progressing, it's not going to be long before you lack "a job", and can't afford to eat at places like hole-in-the-wall restaurants. Like a steadily rising portion of the US population.

Also, do you have any evidence that we're headed into another recession? I was under the impression that economic activity and profits have been steadily, if slowly, rising?

[Sheb]

Trollheimig, the believe that if only government stepped out inequality of opportunities would vanish is a myth. The countries with the lowest social mobility among developed country is the US, where the government do much less that in other, more progressive countries. Rich people send their kids to the Ivy leagues, and poors cannot afford college.

By contrast, countries that are so leftist you'd probably have an earth attack the minute you step in (Like Belgium, where they are seriously arguing about nationalizing a steel plant right now.) have much higher social mobility.

[MaximumZero]

You know, as a vastly left-leaning American, I would be all about nationalizing strategic resources (Oil, steel, precious metals, etc,) if the various levels of government weren't so ungodly bad at their jobs.