Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 51 52 [53] 54 55 ... 297

Author Topic: Occupying Wallstreet  (Read 294804 times)

Chaoswizkid

  • Bay Watcher
  • Bring on the Chaos
    • View Profile
    • Realms of Kar'Kaish New Site
Re: Occupying Wallstreet
« Reply #780 on: October 19, 2011, 05:31:33 pm »

Well, I can't identify myself as a libertarian anymore. I'm not as hardcore as complete anarchy though, so...  What am I? The right already had conservatism, why do they have to take libertarian too...

Possibly because there is already a term for a left wing believer in personal freedom who doesn't go to anarchist levels.  The term is "liberal".

Ah, yeah, I guess, but that leaves one who sides with neither the left nor the right to no longer have a name on the scale.


Which in classic usage, refers to a believer in limited government and free-market prosperity as the solution to societal ills. See the "Liberal Party" in Australia, which is in fact their conservative party.
Yup. For most of the world, liberals are righters.
Wait? When did conservative get synonymous with the right anyway? Over here (Netherlands) we've got center conservatives and far right conservatives...

Because American politics are silly. Everything is either "Everyone pays high taxes so we can give out a bunch of social policies" (left) and "Everyone pays low taxes and the government doesn't give out a bunch of social policies" (right). The leaders of either side are all extreme (though I've only heard of specific examples of the right leaders being extreme, so perhaps the left leaders are less so), so for anything to happen, the policy needs to be extreme to get party support. Then the opposite party complains and you eventually get it down to the point where both sides begrudgingly give support if the policy goes through at all. Unless of course everyone owes you a favor, in which case tradition dictates they whore themselves out, unless you have lobbyist opponents, in which case you're likely screwed without similar support.

At least that's my basic understanding.
Logged
Administrator of the Realms of Kar'Kaish Project.

mainiac

  • Bay Watcher
  • Na vazeal kwah-kai
    • View Profile
Re: Occupying Wallstreet
« Reply #781 on: October 19, 2011, 05:44:42 pm »

Well, I can't identify myself as a libertarian anymore. I'm not as hardcore as complete anarchy though, so...  What am I? The right already had conservatism, why do they have to take libertarian too...

Possibly because there is already a term for a left wing believer in personal freedom who doesn't go to anarchist levels.  The term is "liberal".
Which in classic usage, refers to a believer in limited government and free-market prosperity as the solution to societal ills. See the "Liberal Party" in Australia, which is in fact their conservative party.

Well it's all relative.  The practices that the classical liberals were speaking out against were heavy handed and ill advised attempts by monarchs to manhandle the economy.  Mercantalism was in common practice and the primary function of every government was to tax the poor to pay for a large standing army.  Consider for example what Adam Smith, the father of free markets, had to say about banking regulation:

Quote from: Inquiry Into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations
To restrain private people, it may be said, from receiving in payment the promissory notes of a banker for any sum, whether great or small, when they themselves are willing to receive them; or, to restrain a banker from issuing such notes, when all his neighbours are willing to accept of them, is a manifest violation of that natural liberty, which it is the proper business of law not to infringe, but to support.

Such regulations may, no doubt, be considered as in some respects a violation of natural liberty. But those exertions of the natural liberty of a few individuals, which might endanger the security of the whole society, are, and ought to be, restrained by the laws of all governments; of the most free, as well as of the most despotical. The obligation of building party walls, in order to prevent the communication of fire, is a violation of natural liberty, exactly of the same kind with the regulations of the banking trade which are here proposed.
Which doesn't leave much up to the imagination.

Or on public education:
Quote from: wealth of nations again
For a very small expence the public can facilitate, can encourage, and can even impose upon almost the whole body of the people, the necessity of acquiring those most essential parts of education.

On infrastructure:
Quote from: from a passage listing the duties of a government
...thirdly, the duty of erecting and maintaining certain public works and certain public institutions, which it can never be for the interest of any individual, or small number of individuals, to erect and maintain; because the profit could never repay the expence to any individual, or small number of individuals, though it may frequently do much more than repay it to a great society.

The classical liberals were all like this.  They were objecting to government regulations because there were a lot of crappy government regulations around.  They were arguing for more of a market economy and less of a command economy.  But that isn't the split between modern liberals and today's "classical liberals".  Modern liberals aren't arguing for a command economy, just a regulated one to deal with negative externalities and dangerous practices.

In many ways it's the same mistake people made with the cold war.  The soviet union showed us that while communism was great at building factories, it was pretty crappy when it came to running them in a way that got people the stuff they wanted.  This tells us that planned economies are a bad idea.  Yet people use the failures of a command economy to make and distribute consumer goods as a reason of why government managed healthcare won't work.  This is despite the fact that government healthcare had a good a pretty good track record at the exact same time that communism was crashing and burning.

When people invoke the classical liberals, they are invoking the failure of mercantilism, guilds, serfdom and nobility.  But they are using that failure to argue against things like education, public safety and infrastructure, the exact sort of things that were proving to be very good investments at the time of the classical liberals!

To put it simply, the liberals of today are pretty much the classical liberals of auld lang syne.  Some of the issues that we face today did not exist.  There were no government run healthcare programs because medical science barely existed.  There weren't welfare programs because those aren't often necessary in a largely agrarian society (which did lead to the classical liberals in England horribly mismanaging the Irish famine.")  But there was an economy that should have been run on market principles with government intervention in a few places.  Which neatly describes the liberal outlook of today.

Everything is either "Everyone pays high taxes so we can give out a bunch of social policies" (left) and "Everyone pays low taxes and the government doesn't give out a bunch of social policies" (right).

I object to that characterization of the left.  The left would often be perfectly happy to achieve their policies through low tax means if that were politically viable.  Just look at Australia, a country with low inequality.  Even here in America, that analogy falls apart.  President Bush's Medicare Part D initiative cost more then Obama's signature healthcare act.  But it's okay if you are a republican to start expensive new policies and pay for them with increasing the national debt.

BTW, the huge Medicare Part D boondoggle, subsidizing people to buy medicine with a policy that increased the cost of medicine, is a prime example of the exact sort of heavy handed intervention that classical liberals said governments should avoid.
« Last Edit: October 19, 2011, 05:46:35 pm by mainiac »
Logged
Ancient Babylonian god of RAEG
--------------
[CAN_INTERNET]
[PREFSTRING:google]
"Don't tell me what you value. Show me your budget and I will tell you what you value"
« Last Edit: February 10, 1988, 03:27:23 pm by UR MOM »
mainiac is always a little sarcastic, at least.

Osmosis Jones

  • Bay Watcher
  • Now with 100% more rotation!
    • View Profile
Re: Occupying Wallstreet
« Reply #782 on: October 19, 2011, 05:52:12 pm »

Ah, yeah, I guess, but that leaves one who sides with neither the left nor the right to no longer have a name on the scale.

Centrist?

Also, @mainiac, do you want to know what is really scary for us Australians? Recently, the right (our Liberal party) has enjoyed growing popular support... by becoming more like the U.S. Republican party :S
Logged
The Marx generator will produce Engels-waves which should allow the inherently unstable isotope of Leninium to undergo a rapid Stalinisation in mere trockoseconds.

Bdthemag

  • Bay Watcher
  • Die Wacht am Rhein
    • View Profile
Re: Occupying Wallstreet
« Reply #783 on: October 19, 2011, 05:53:07 pm »

Ah, yeah, I guess, but that leaves one who sides with neither the left nor the right to no longer have a name on the scale.

Centrist?

Also, @mainiac, do you want to know what is really scary for us Australians? Recently, the right (our Liberal party) has enjoyed growing popular support... by becoming more like the U.S. Republican party :S
Whaaaaaaaa?
Logged
Well, you do have a busy life, what with keeping tabs on wild, rough-and-tumble forum members while sorting out the drama between your twenty two inner lesbians.
Your drunk posts continue to baffle me.
Welcome to Reality.

SalmonGod

  • Bay Watcher
  • Nyarrr
    • View Profile
Re: Occupying Wallstreet
« Reply #784 on: October 19, 2011, 05:55:07 pm »

Also, @mainiac, do you want to know what is really scary for us Australians? Recently, the right (our Liberal party) has enjoyed growing popular support... by becoming more like the U.S. Republican party :S

The American tantrum spiral has already begun.  It's too late for us.  You still have time to apply magma.
Logged
In the land of twilight, under the moon
We dance for the idiots
As the end will come so soon
In the land of twilight

Maybe people should love for the sake of loving, and not with all of these optimization conditions.

mainiac

  • Bay Watcher
  • Na vazeal kwah-kai
    • View Profile
Re: Occupying Wallstreet
« Reply #785 on: October 19, 2011, 06:03:02 pm »

Ah, yeah, I guess, but that leaves one who sides with neither the left nor the right to no longer have a name on the scale.

Centrist?

Also, @mainiac, do you want to know what is really scary for us Australians? Recently, the right (our Liberal party) has enjoyed growing popular support... by becoming more like the U.S. Republican party :S

Time to start the un-Liberal Crime Squad.
"Do you want to know something disturbing?"
"What?"
"There are people in this country trying to import American style political dysfunction."
"That is disturbing!"
Logged
Ancient Babylonian god of RAEG
--------------
[CAN_INTERNET]
[PREFSTRING:google]
"Don't tell me what you value. Show me your budget and I will tell you what you value"
« Last Edit: February 10, 1988, 03:27:23 pm by UR MOM »
mainiac is always a little sarcastic, at least.

Dsarker

  • Bay Watcher
  • Ἱησους Χριστος Θεου Υἱος Σωτηρ
    • View Profile
Re: Occupying Wallstreet
« Reply #786 on: October 19, 2011, 06:03:10 pm »

Also, @mainiac, do you want to know what is really scary for us Australians? Recently, the right (our Liberal party) has enjoyed growing popular support... by becoming more like the U.S. Republican party :S

The American tantrum spiral has already begun.  It's too late for us.  You still have time to apply magma.

Oh, but here's the kicker - the only other party that can form government is doing the same thing.
Logged
Quote from: NewsMuffin
Dsarker is the trolliest Catholic
Quote
[Dsarker is] a good for nothing troll.
You do not convince me. You rationalize your actions and because the result is favorable you become right.
"There are times, Sember, when I could believe your mother had a secret lover. Looking at you makes me wonder if it was one of my goats."

Bdthemag

  • Bay Watcher
  • Die Wacht am Rhein
    • View Profile
Re: Occupying Wallstreet
« Reply #787 on: October 19, 2011, 06:06:19 pm »

Once again im suggesting the Internet Crime Squad.

Logged
Well, you do have a busy life, what with keeping tabs on wild, rough-and-tumble forum members while sorting out the drama between your twenty two inner lesbians.
Your drunk posts continue to baffle me.
Welcome to Reality.

SalmonGod

  • Bay Watcher
  • Nyarrr
    • View Profile
Re: Occupying Wallstreet
« Reply #788 on: October 19, 2011, 06:07:26 pm »

Also, @mainiac, do you want to know what is really scary for us Australians? Recently, the right (our Liberal party) has enjoyed growing popular support... by becoming more like the U.S. Republican party :S

The American tantrum spiral has already begun.  It's too late for us.  You still have time to apply magma.

Oh, but here's the kicker - the only other party that can form government is doing the same thing.

They're all nobles.   Build them a fancy new building to do their government stuff in.  They won't know about the lever.
Logged
In the land of twilight, under the moon
We dance for the idiots
As the end will come so soon
In the land of twilight

Maybe people should love for the sake of loving, and not with all of these optimization conditions.

Dsarker

  • Bay Watcher
  • Ἱησους Χριστος Θεου Υἱος Σωτηρ
    • View Profile
Re: Occupying Wallstreet
« Reply #789 on: October 19, 2011, 06:12:54 pm »

Also, @mainiac, do you want to know what is really scary for us Australians? Recently, the right (our Liberal party) has enjoyed growing popular support... by becoming more like the U.S. Republican party :S

The American tantrum spiral has already begun.  It's too late for us.  You still have time to apply magma.

Oh, but here's the kicker - the only other party that can form government is doing the same thing.

They're all nobles.   Build them a fancy new building to do their government stuff in.  They won't know about the lever.

Now, here's the really fun thing.

Person who's currently in power, Julia Gillard, took over from Kevin Rudd. Now, he got elected to do the hard yards and reform the country even against its will. That's the platform, I believe it is called, that he ran under. Once he got in, he basically reverted to polling the populace about what he should do, as opposed to, you know, the policies he was elected for.
Logged
Quote from: NewsMuffin
Dsarker is the trolliest Catholic
Quote
[Dsarker is] a good for nothing troll.
You do not convince me. You rationalize your actions and because the result is favorable you become right.
"There are times, Sember, when I could believe your mother had a secret lover. Looking at you makes me wonder if it was one of my goats."

Osmosis Jones

  • Bay Watcher
  • Now with 100% more rotation!
    • View Profile
Re: Occupying Wallstreet
« Reply #790 on: October 19, 2011, 06:26:22 pm »

Here's an example. Our (Labor party) treasurer, Wayne Swan, recently got voted best treasurer in the world by Eurofinance (apparently a pretty big magazine on the topic). The head of the Greens, a surprisingly nice guy called Bob Brown, got up, and put forward a motion that the parliament congratulate Mr Swan. Basically this just means all the pollies say "Hear hear" and they move on with their business. It doesn't affect any legislation, it's just giving the guy a well deserved pat on the back for keeping our economy from crashing despite the rest of the world going arse up.

The Liberals (who, like your republicans, are currently the opposition) literally booed Bob Brown down, and said he didn't deserve it, and even if he did, Eurofinance wasn't worth listening to anyway. Their reasoning for that was because their last treasurer (who stayed on for 12 years, mind you) didn't get it, and the last person to get awarded it was another Labor minister. They couldn't stomach even a single sentence of goodwill.

Then of course, there is the Liberal leader. About as conservative as you can get, with antiquated views on gender roles, abortion and gay marriage, and a political platform that is literally, no hyperbole involved, based on saying No to whatever the current government suggest. They can't even scrape up an internally consistant financial policy, and that is supposed to be the liberal strong suit!

Now, here's the really fun thing.

Person who's currently in power, Julia Gillard, took over from Kevin Rudd. Now, he got elected to do the hard yards and reform the country even against its will. That's the platform, I believe it is called, that he ran under. Once he got in, he basically reverted to polling the populace about what he should do, as opposed to, you know, the policies he was elected for.

I kind of got a different vibe from what I read, more that he was booted for going a little overboard in some respects. For example, a lot of Rudd's environment proposals were going to hit the industrial sector pretty hard. Since a major support base is the unions,  the labor caucus tends to stay fairly traditional. That said, Gillard has made an arse of it herself too, but at least she got the carbon tax through.
Logged
The Marx generator will produce Engels-waves which should allow the inherently unstable isotope of Leninium to undergo a rapid Stalinisation in mere trockoseconds.

Dsarker

  • Bay Watcher
  • Ἱησους Χριστος Θεου Υἱος Σωτηρ
    • View Profile
Re: Occupying Wallstreet
« Reply #791 on: October 19, 2011, 06:49:17 pm »

Here's an example. Our (Labor party) treasurer, Wayne Swan, recently got voted best treasurer in the world by Eurofinance (apparently a pretty big magazine on the topic). The head of the Greens, a surprisingly nice guy called Bob Brown, got up, and put forward a motion that the parliament congratulate Mr Swan. Basically this just means all the pollies say "Hear hear" and they move on with their business. It doesn't affect any legislation, it's just giving the guy a well deserved pat on the back for keeping our economy from crashing despite the rest of the world going arse up.

The Liberals (who, like your republicans, are currently the opposition) literally booed Bob Brown down, and said he didn't deserve it, and even if he did, Eurofinance wasn't worth listening to anyway. Their reasoning for that was because their last treasurer (who stayed on for 12 years, mind you) didn't get it, and the last person to get awarded it was another Labor minister. They couldn't stomach even a single sentence of goodwill.

Then of course, there is the Liberal leader. About as conservative as you can get, with antiquated views on gender roles, abortion and gay marriage, and a political platform that is literally, no hyperbole involved, based on saying No to whatever the current government suggest. They can't even scrape up an internally consistant financial policy, and that is supposed to be the liberal strong suit!

Now, here's the really fun thing.

Person who's currently in power, Julia Gillard, took over from Kevin Rudd. Now, he got elected to do the hard yards and reform the country even against its will. That's the platform, I believe it is called, that he ran under. Once he got in, he basically reverted to polling the populace about what he should do, as opposed to, you know, the policies he was elected for.

I kind of got a different vibe from what I read, more that he was booted for going a little overboard in some respects. For example, a lot of Rudd's environment proposals were going to hit the industrial sector pretty hard. Since a major support base is the unions,  the labor caucus tends to stay fairly traditional. That said, Gillard has made an arse of it herself too, but at least she got the carbon tax through.

I hate them all. Very tempted to create the Ethical Party.

Now, if we could only get enough people with enough different systems of ethics (I'm talking Rule Utilitarianism, Act Utilitarianism, Ontological Ethics, Deontological Ethics, Buddhist, Christian (Of all stripes, would be the hope), Islamic (of all (both?) groups), Hindu (Do they have different groups?), other religions (including those we don't like)), and get them to make personal decisions on each issue. Probably a national conference each year to debate on ethics as a whole, and especially big issues. Feth practicality!
Logged
Quote from: NewsMuffin
Dsarker is the trolliest Catholic
Quote
[Dsarker is] a good for nothing troll.
You do not convince me. You rationalize your actions and because the result is favorable you become right.
"There are times, Sember, when I could believe your mother had a secret lover. Looking at you makes me wonder if it was one of my goats."

Leafsnail

  • Bay Watcher
  • A single snail can make a world go extinct.
    • View Profile
Re: Occupying Wallstreet
« Reply #792 on: October 19, 2011, 06:51:43 pm »

Now, if we could only get enough people with enough different systems of ethics (I'm talking Rule Utilitarianism, Act Utilitarianism, Ontological Ethics, Deontological Ethics, Buddhist, Christian (Of all stripes, would be the hope), Islamic (of all (both?) groups), Hindu (Do they have different groups?), other religions (including those we don't like)), and get them to make personal decisions on each issue.
So uh... you're effectively voting for a party that will vote randomly and will never be able to create a government?
Logged

Dsarker

  • Bay Watcher
  • Ἱησους Χριστος Θεου Υἱος Σωτηρ
    • View Profile
Re: Occupying Wallstreet
« Reply #793 on: October 19, 2011, 06:58:13 pm »

Now, if we could only get enough people with enough different systems of ethics (I'm talking Rule Utilitarianism, Act Utilitarianism, Ontological Ethics, Deontological Ethics, Buddhist, Christian (Of all stripes, would be the hope), Islamic (of all (both?) groups), Hindu (Do they have different groups?), other religions (including those we don't like)), and get them to make personal decisions on each issue.
So uh... you're effectively voting for a party that will vote randomly and will never be able to create a government?

YES! Thus no corruption will be possible as it will never be able to have any effect. But with any luck, it will be able to come up with ways to reform the political system!
Logged
Quote from: NewsMuffin
Dsarker is the trolliest Catholic
Quote
[Dsarker is] a good for nothing troll.
You do not convince me. You rationalize your actions and because the result is favorable you become right.
"There are times, Sember, when I could believe your mother had a secret lover. Looking at you makes me wonder if it was one of my goats."

micelus

  • Bay Watcher
  • If you wait long enough, it moves.
    • View Profile
Re: Occupying Wallstreet
« Reply #794 on: October 19, 2011, 07:00:31 pm »

Better than the two main parties anyway...Well ethically and morally. Doubt that the economical side of things would go well with all the differing opinions and beliefs. Meh.
Logged
Do you hear that, Endra? NONE CAN STAND AGAINST THE POWER OF THE DENTAL, AHAHAHAHA!!!
You win Nakeen
Marduk is my waifu
Inanna is my husbando
Pages: 1 ... 51 52 [53] 54 55 ... 297