Print

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

[Naturegirl1999]

Lobbying ruined democracy

If lobbying ruined democracy, and democracy ruined capitalism, then did lobbying ruin capitalism?

[Yoink]

Ya mum ruined capitalism!


(I'm sorry, I'm drunk, ignore me. As far as I am aware I don't even know your mother, let alone her political platform.)

[wierd]

Naw--

Capitalism as a system (A working system that is) requires the actions of many small actors to all be canceling to each other in order for it to work.  On seller can't just decide "My stuff is just plain better, and I worked harder than those other people making this kind of product did, so my stuff is deserving of THIS price!"; Buyers will simply not buy their product, because they can get a suitably similar alternative for a fraction of that price.  That's how it is supposed to work. This downward pressure through competition is NECESSARY to the function of capitalism as a system.

And yet, here we are--- with industries doing that exact thing, without any alternatives in the market to provide that downward pressure.  See for instance, the price fixing schemes of LCD screen makers.


Whenever you see the rhetoric about "Our way of life!" as it relates to "capitalism", double check that they mean "Many small actors who's attempts at rent seeking are cancelled by the actions of all the others, via market selection", and not mislabeled oligopolism (A handful of really big players that dominate and dictate market behaviors through controlling both price and availability in the market.)

You will almost certainly see that they are doing this latter 99% of the time.  Such as say, with the whole "Counterfeit drugs!" (No, not "Mislabeled shit claiming to be drug X, but really being poisonous shit Y"-- I mean "No, it really IS drug X-- just made by some other company, in some other country, which inhibits rent seeking.") and "Counterfeit parts!" cries from lobbyists and other industry mouthpieces.

[Naturegirl1999]

It seems capitalism is an oligopolism now

[smjjames]

it is not required to be a bible-beater to be a shameless capitalist.

I know, and that's not what I was saying.

You can find this divide in the GOP. The former simply accept the latter as their own. The thing they have in common is shameless capitalism, not the bible beating.

You can point out shameless rent seeking is admonished HARD by the bible all you want, or how it says that rich people have a harder time getting into heaven than camels have fitting through the eyes of needles, or even point out that in revelation, the thing that the survivors praise as the 7th seal is opened is the destruction of those that were destroying the earth.  It does not matter.

I was just going off on a tangent over socialism=environmentalism (or rather =/= ) anyways. As much as they'd like to believe, environmentalism isn't the sole domain of any specific political ideology.

[Trekkin]

I was just going off on a tangent over socialism=environmentalism (or rather =/= ) anyways. As much as they'd like to believe, environmentalism isn't the sole domain of any specific political ideology.

True, but capitalism-at-all-costs has no room for it. That's kind of the origin of the meme version of socialism: trying to get the market to do anything but hand rents to the rich is going to impede its ability to do that, and is therefore anticapitalist.

[wierd]

it is not required to be a bible-beater to be a shameless capitalist.

I know, and that's not what I was saying.

You can find this divide in the GOP. The former simply accept the latter as their own. The thing they have in common is shameless capitalism, not the bible beating.

You can point out shameless rent seeking is admonished HARD by the bible all you want, or how it says that rich people have a harder time getting into heaven than camels have fitting through the eyes of needles, or even point out that in revelation, the thing that the survivors praise as the 7th seal is opened is the destruction of those that were destroying the earth.  It does not matter.

I was just going off on a tangent over socialism=environmentalism (or rather =/= ) anyways. As much as they'd like to believe, environmentalism isn't the sole domain of any specific political ideology.

I have some views on it, and my answer is not really 100% off, just tangential to your own concerning it.

Your basic question is "Why doesn't the church embrace environmentalism more, when its teachings say that is the right path?"

I kinda jumped the gun, and went straight to "The GOP is not really about religion, it's about money."  These two DO in fact meet:


The christian faith seems significantly vulnerable to a logical fallacy:  To be good, you must be a christian; Being a christian makes you GOOD!
It also has a baked in "authorities are good, and sent by god!" message.

When you combine the two, with dirty dealing politics, you get things like the GOP.

"I'm a good christian, so you should vote for me! Religious fundamentalism all the way! Praise jesus! (just don't talk about my homosexual liaisons with underage boys when I take my overseas vacations. That's not cool. Also, I will do anything that makes me richer, regardless of what the bible actually says!)" runs smack dab into the "Authorities sent by god!" angle, and people who are not more critical of their selections fall for it. (the reasons are many, but the outcome is what really matters in the long run. It happens more often than not.)

It gets further complicated once they become political officials, and not just candidates.  Now they have full weight of the Romans reference! You should give deference to them and their views! (which is why the churches are not more vocally critical)

Again, you dont have to be a religious bible beater to be a shameless capitalist; It just helps you get elected.

[smjjames]

Isn't any religion vulnerable to logical fallacy? I really doubt Christianity (or Abrahamic religions in general) have any sort of monopoly on being vulnerable to logical fallacy, it's just the religion you and I are the most familiar with.

[wierd]

I did not say that-- I said that christianity is particularly vulnerable to THAT one.  Which it is.

It's why you see the word "christian" appended to all sorts of shit here in bible-thumpia-land, where it has no business being.

Like "Christian dating service"

The whole REASON d'tre for that site REVOLVES around that fallacy;  Because the people using it are christians, they must be good! (ahem)

[Reelya]

That concept isn't a good example of just slapping Christian on something for no reason: it's valid to have an X dating service for people who want to date someone with a specific criteria because then they don't need to wade through a pile of irrelevant profiles.

It's not revolving around the idea that only Christians are good, it's revolving around the idea that christians want to date other Christians exclusively. A christian might think that a non-christian is good but still not want to date them because of the religious beliefs. I mean, few Christians go after the Dalai Lama as a bad person, yet, they're unlikely to date a Buddhist all the same.

Nobody is really keen to date outside their religion, but that includes Atheists. Date an atheist and say you're a Christian and see them leap for the exit. And yes, there are atheist-only dating sites.

[PTTG??]

Hey so since one mass shooting within 24 hours isn't worth mentioning anymore, now we're up to two. One in a Texas Wal-mart, the other in Dayton, Ohio.

I mean we could talk guns and we could talk mental health. Honestly at this point I'd be happy if the government did anything, anything at all, to prevent these things. Increase funding for public mural projects. Order the rotunda rebuilt. Declare the second Thursday of each month pie appreciation day.

Just, do anything and say it's to stop far-right terrorism in the United States. Fucking lie to me.

I mean, if we wanted to actually do something effective, we could start with a campaign against stochastic terrorism, but, dang it, then what would the President watch at 4AM?

[wierd]

That concept isn't a good example of just slapping Christian on something for no reason: it's valid to have an X dating service for people who want to date someone with a specific criteria because then they don't need to wade through a pile of irrelevant profiles.

It's not revolving around the idea that only Christians are good, it's revolving around the idea that christians want to date other Christians exclusively. A christian might think that a non-christian is good but still not want to date them because of the religious beliefs. I mean, few Christians go after the Dalai Lama as a bad person, yet, they're unlikely to date a Buddhist all the same.

Nobody is really keen to date outside their religion, but that includes Atheists. Date an atheist and say you're a Christian and see them leap for the exit. And yes, there are atheist-only dating sites.

Which an ordinary dating service handles with their profile data, and search terms.  "Christian, looking for other christians? Check this box!"

This site? "We presume only christians would use such a service-- What? Weirdos with fetishes? What nonsense!"

[Trekkin]

stochastic terrorism

What would deterministic terrorism look like?

[Reelya]

That concept isn't a good example of just slapping Christian on something for no reason: it's valid to have an X dating service for people who want to date someone with a specific criteria because then they don't need to wade through a pile of irrelevant profiles.

It's not revolving around the idea that only Christians are good, it's revolving around the idea that christians want to date other Christians exclusively. A christian might think that a non-christian is good but still not want to date them because of the religious beliefs. I mean, few Christians go after the Dalai Lama as a bad person, yet, they're unlikely to date a Buddhist all the same.

Nobody is really keen to date outside their religion, but that includes Atheists. Date an atheist and say you're a Christian and see them leap for the exit. And yes, there are atheist-only dating sites.

Which an ordinary dating service handles with their profile data, and search terms.  "Christian, looking for other christians? Check this box!"

This site? "We presume only christians would use such a service-- What? Weirdos with fetishes? What nonsense!"

So you're saying it presumes those things by merely existing, rather than it actually said that. I had to check.

It presumes no such thing, no more than
https://www.datingatheists.com/
Pressumes that only atheists are "rational" people and therefore worthy of dating. It actually says:

Atheists are down to Earth, realistic and fun to be with

Which is directly saying all non-atheists are loopy, unrealistic bores. At the site the christian one links to it only says "At Christian Mingle we believe a God-centered relationship is worth the wait" rather than say Christians are inherently better and more worthy of dating than anyone else.

[wierd]

stochastic terrorism

What would deterministic terrorism look like?

Highly predictable, along fixed and known causal events or elements?

"If you don't do X, we will do Y."

"We wont do X!"

{Does Y.}

Always, and without fail?