Wilted Rose
Too long...Have too many other things to do...I guess this won't away. >.< Just small points.
dammit, you gonna make me work for this. where all y'all who were bitching about libertarianism before? why you guys not pulling your weight when the chips are down?
To start with last point first... yes, I haven't been entirely serious. See, to me, this isn't some horrible argument, it's just an entertaining bit of forum fun. So I've been hyperbolic or tongue-in-cheek just for fun, and I suppose it has become confusing. So that line you quoted... yeh, that's crazy oversimplified because I'm just screwing off. That's also just partly how I write... like seriously, I wrote most my essays in school in a tongue in cheek manner, always to varied effect. It's a personality quirk I suppose. Though, in my defense, in some places you have been misunderstanding me. That is probably my fault too. Can't say I'm the clearest point explainerer. But I ain't the type of give up with shit gets fun, so here we go again.
1. "I'll take anything that gets any sort of result I like." Is a rather dangerous political belief. If that's just a general thing. That'd be like wishing for more people to go on mass shooting because maybe it get people to want more gun bans...Not saying its the same, or you believe such a thing ofcourse. It still is a little scary to say.
That is a rather extreme comparison, but you recognize that so I won't push to hard on that. I'd like to say though, you should read up on what has been done to pass legislation in the past. Not calling you out, but rather saying you should because it is seriously fun reading. Either way, what I am driving at is that politics is a grimy thing. It's rare for things to be done on the square. So Obama, to me, fits pretty nicely into the general beat of American history.
But how did Obama failing to provide socialized medicine help anyone? I just straight up don't get it, probably never will.
What I am saying is that, by creating a situation where the only way the problem can be fixed is by socializing the healthcare system, he has guaranteed it will be socialized one way or another in the near future. I explained it a couple of times in the last few posts, and I don't know another way to word it, so I suppose you'll have to refer back to those. I should stress I am thinking long term, not short term.
2. Trickle down economics have never existed. Ever. It's political jargon bullshit
You don't gotta tell me that right-wing economics is BS. I'm with you there. But seriously, the argument posed here seems to be mostly a problem with the term. And though I have no doubt that real economists don't take the idea at face value for serious, I do think that politicians are willing to use the concept behind this idea, and more importantly, it is totally how economics is seen on the ground by the common folk. Seriously. I've had this discussion with plenty of people before, who openly argued for the concept of trickle-down economics at face value. Academic realities don't always match up with either the popular or the political realities.
3. Well I asked maybe do it via PM...but I don't want to sound controlling or anything.
Naw man, that wouldn't be as fun.
...dude..."You presented one way that pollution regulation can go wrong. I could point to the slave-trade as an example of why capitalism is wrong, but both your and my arguments would be disingenuous". This statement is quite disingenuous alright. XD Slave trade exists in socialism too, and they're are FAR MORE benefits to capitalism than government restrictions. This is the kind of statement that makes me think of black/white.
Don't argue with the analogy, that's missing the point entirely. What I am saying is that arguing against specific examples in a general system isn't proof against the general system, but rather against the specific example. Pointing out slavery as evidence against capitalism would be dumb because that argument only proves slavery is wrong - you take out slavery, and it can no longer be used as an example against capitalism. For the same reason, pointing out the existence of bad regulations or taxes does not stand out as proof against the entire concept of regulation or taxation. Take out the bad eggs and you can still have regulation and taxation.
This is the point where I need to pull aside and point out that you keep posting links with specific example, mostly editorials, instead of getting at the general problem here. Make your own arguments, man. Use evidence of course, but don't use editorials.
According to economists... etc
Ok, so here is my problem with these arguments. We're worrying about the effects of legislation on employment and not on the benefits for society. The employment argument is a little shady. Now, I am going to use an analogy again, but I don't want it to be misconstrued, so I am going to point out a few things. A: Don't take what I am going to say literally or make an argument against the analogy, and B: I don't at all think you literally think this way. Okay, so here is the problem with arguing using only employment as a standard: If the only moral precept society needs to consider is the economic health of the country as shown through employment rates, then our economics problems would be solved by hiring deathsquads to hunt down unemployed people. We'll call this scenario "Reaganomics Part II: First Blood".
The point is, we have to consider other things than cold hard economics, and that is the point of regulation. I can't stress enough that I am fine with the idea of getting rid of regulations that produce no benefit, but I do not think that the existence of some useless regulations mean that all regulation is useless entirely. I also do have a natural distrust for any politician who brings it up, because I'm used to the pattern of politicians cutting costs only to redirect money into their own projects at the expense of the general population.
*As much as 80% of all inflation is attributable to federal, state and local government mandates and regulations, according to economist Richard Rahn.
I sincerely doubt that number. It seems a bit inflated. It also seems incredibly arbitrary. That he's a libertarian suggests to me he might be a tad biased.
*Americans spend 12 billion hours, equal to 48 hours per capita, dealing with federal forms each year.
I probably inflate that number since it is literally my job to deal with federal forms. Beside that, I think that "DAE paperwork sux" isn't much of an argument.
*According to the New England Journal of Medicine, 24% of all health care spending goes for administrative and regulatory costs.
The Administrative cost of medicine is infamous. That being said, I do kinda want my healthcare to be regulated.
*Since stringent drug-approval procedures were enacted in 1962, the cost of developing new drugs has doubled and the number of drugs approved each year has plummeted by two-thirds.
What does this disprove? I don't get how this is supposed to be a bad thing. The entire point of those procedures were to make sure that the market wasn't flooded by dangerous drugs. Like Aaron said, in a circumstance where the buyers have no way of knowing whether or not a product is legitimate (you can't do to a pill what you do for an avocado and squeeze it to make sure it is fresh), it is good to have a government agency dealing with the matter.
Excessive regulations have held-up reconstruction of riot-torn South Central Los Angeles. Entrepreneurs wishing to start up "light industries" in Los Angeles must first receive as many as 200 approvals from federal, state, city and regional government authorities.
This seems exceptional, so a discerning eye would suggest the number is extreme. But if it is true, yeh, it should be fixed.
Like, all of these links have produced in me the same feeling that made me drop my teenaged libertarianism so long ago. There seems to be a prevailing idea in your argument that government is an unnecessary step that we can generally trust the decency of private enterprise to have our best interests at heart. That idea to me, and don't take this the wrong way, but it seems painfully naive. It's not that business owners are all cackling mad men in their evil towers, I'm not saying that. But it's just that, the same human capacity for finding a niche and milking money from it which makes capitalism works also means that less scrupulous people will inevitably find morally questionable niches and milk them too. If allowed, a snake-oil salesman will inevitably pop up and swindle people with fake drugs. This isn't in question because... well, the phrase snake-oil salesman exists for a reason. If a business can cut costs by polluting, some will. And for this reason, the general population needs advocacy. It just seems to me that the best choice for an advocate is that thing we can vote in.
Private property is one way to create cleaner environments. It does make sense, if let's say a non profit, didn't want people polluting in a park, if they were able to pool there money and buy the land, anyone dumping on their ground could be fined. Just assuming every business is evil and are like the cartoon villain's via captain planet. Ignores all the businesses that are for the environment, the government is terrible at keeping public property clean. It's something the libertarians argue for. Now its of course not a end all solution, nothing is. But it's a start right?
This only works for littering, and we do it. That's what things like the "Adopt-a-Highway" program exists for. It doesn't work for the sorts of pollution that are not limited to specific pieces of property though. There isn't really a practical way to sell a water-table, or the air, to a private trustee. The one place you could use this argument is the federal park system, but to me that seems like taking something that isn't broke and pretending to fix it.
The reason I don't think your being particularly gray...
Lemme clear up what I mean. I have beliefs, and I am by no means a centrist. I absolutely and unapologetically pull to the left. But what I mean by grey is that, I do not believe things are as simple as bad and good. I don't think a right wing government is the end of the world, and I don't think a left wing government would fix everything. I've never liked the idea so many idealists have that, if we just do things their way, history will end and we will never have problems again. The history of the human race is the history of struggle, we will always have trouble. So to me, this isn't some black and white good vs evil shit, we're legitimately just disagreeing about what we think is better for the common folk.
your saying Ted Cruz wants to fire "me".
Actually, he does. It was one of his campaign promises, literally. I'm not trolling you either, i'm telling the truth. But I will leave you to figure this one out.
when the beginning of the conversation is "I didn't read your link or side, but I totally did" like less than a minute after my post. When one side plugs their ears, it doesn't seem like this is a discussion, its a battle to be right. And that's the kind of stuff I really don't like.
Well, I did skim them to know what the point was. That being said, I have always resented that way of making arguments. I supposed if you want to know why I don't like that method of doing things, imagine what your teacher would say if instead of an essay you just sent them a bunch of links. It suggests you either can't be bothered, or you don't genuinely understand what is being discussed, and besides that it is a really tedious thing to do. I want to see your thoughts, man. I want to see you parse the information on your own. Especially with economics, a subject where you could find people to support just about any argument you ever could want to make. It is a battle to be right, but not in the way that you think. The point of this stuff is to test our ability to understand and discuss the subject, and sitting back and posting links just don't cut it.
I just find that a little ridiculous. That's the supposed straw man argument of democrat vote democrat solely to get free crap. But your not made of straw are you? It makes it hard to take you seriously when I can't tell what's a joke or not. :P (it also reminds me of my roommate's grandpa saying I'd rather have a black man lie to me and a white one, for why he voted for Obama.)
Don't be so serious, man. Enjoy yourself. Your roommate's grandpa sounds like he's worth his old spice IMHO.
<Snipped quote by TheEvanCat>
Clearly, it's the guy who has the largest collection of LARPing equipment.
That's basically the plot to "Dies the Fire"
