Gas Bandit's Political Thread V: The Vampire Likes Bats
- Thread starter GasBandit
- Start date
GasBandit
Staff member
That's the very antithesis of free market. You're basically arguing the same as "shouldn't a person be free to decide he will sell himself into slavery?"
but you're gonna do your damnedest to paint me as such, because Ad Hominems are the go-to resource of the rhetorically bankrupt.
C'mon, you should know better than to think any persuasive argument begins with the word "c'mon."
I've been a card carrying libertarian since I was old enough to vote. I've undermined the two party system at every opportunity presented to me. I don't care who is "just slightly closer" to what.
It's been mathematically proven that you'll never get out of the 2 party system without changing 1st-past-the-post... even if both parties fail spectacularly enough for you to get multiple new parties, they'll all unite over time until only 2 are left (unless you have some sort of local thing that keeps a party separate for pure ideological issues, like the Quebec thing).
I'm not, but lets be honest here, we all know what side the libertarians are on, even if they hate to admit it...Also, telling Gas that he needs to be a Republican is hilarity in and of itself.
X
GasBandit
Staff member
Sort of like how we all know democrats are really just commie socialists who want to live on welfare and not contribute, right? Even if they hate to admit it.
Necronic
Staff member
I very much disagree with this. Sure this is the standard answer to "what's the difference between a democrat and a republican" but I don't think it remotely covers the divide we're seeing today.
Quite a lot of the platform Trump ran on was extremely focused on collectivism, particularly the issues in the rust belt and in coal country. Government intervention in the free market to support failing industries is definitely not an individualist stance. This is why trump won so many union voters, and subsequently won the Midwest which then gave him the presidency.
Trumps platform can broadly be described as a weird combination of populist collectivism and nationalism wrapped up in a paper thin individualist veneer.
As for the "don't treat them like animals" thing I generally agree.
Last edited:
How exactly?
In my example the owner and the union have come to an understanding by negotiating with each other, and, as per free market principles, it should then favour both (i said contract, not laws forcing them to do it).
While being a slave implies you give up rights (that are supposedly inalienable).
An Ad Hominem attacks a quality of the speaker that is irrelevant to the discussion. Like, let's say, calling someone "rhetorically bankrupt"...
While i was outright accusing you of dodging the issue... even if i did it by comparing you to someone that is an insult to be compared to (sorry, couldn't help myself).
Less rudely put: you where overgeneralising a lot to fit your point better...
"Don't blame me, i voted for Kodo"....
But anyhow, you just admitted there's more then two sides. Or at least that your prior Dem/Rep "divide" is flawed.
And maybe it would help undermine the 2 party system more if everyone stopped trying to simplify all conflicts as side 1 vs side 2.[DOUBLEPOST=1487105753,1487105227][/DOUBLEPOST]
You're trying really hard to make me stop feeling bad about calling you Kellyanne, aren't you?
A more apt parallel would be pointing out that "commie socialists who want to live on welfare and not contribute" are gonna always be on the democrat side.
Either that, or they're going to "waste their vote" (the funny thing is that, if everyone who didn't vote would "waste" it, a 3rd party would win in a landslide... 48% of 55% isn't even 30% of the votes).
....
And, i'd like to point out that you're the one that brought up the Dem/Rep as aligning to your previous mentioned divide... which kind of just goes to show how ingrained the 2 party thing is, when you don't even mention your actual political affiliation because it's technically "3rd party".
Nah, it's only
I didn't see Gas saying Dem vs. Rep, you kind of went there yourself. Individualism and collectivism is the issue that goes deeper than parties, but I would argue instead that the sides are "Collectivism that benefits me and Collectivism that benefits 'society'." Neither party has the monopoly on either position.
GasBandit
Staff member
And becoming a union-exclusive employer also gives up rights to free association, also inalienable.
Then maybe you should have put it that way to begin with, insteadAn Ad Hominem attacks a quality of the speaker that is irrelevant to the discussion. Like, let's say, calling someone "rhetorically bankrupt"...
While i was outright accusing you of dodging the issue... even if i did it by comparing you to someone that is an insult to be compared to (sorry, couldn't help myself).
Less rudely put: you where overgeneralising a lot to fit your point better...
And calling someone rhetorically bankrupt is not an ad hominem - an ad hominem casts aspersions on an argument because of its author. You attempted to undermine my argument by comparing me to Kellyanne Conway, someone universally recognized as an all around horrible person and liar, whereas I cast aspersions on you personally because of your use of an ad hominem. There is a quite obvious difference.You do remember that in that parable, Kodos and Kang each represented the two major parties, NOT a third party, right?
I have specifically, and now repeatedly, said that the divide I describe is NOT Dem/Rep.
Or made generalizations that tried to force everybody into one of two labels.[DOUBLEPOST=1487105898,1487105829][/DOUBLEPOST]
What, because I held a sarcastic mirror up to a specious argument?
GasBandit
Staff member
If I might digress from the philisophical dick-waving for a moment, I'd like to say that this is why I respect Bernie Sanders even if I don't agree with most of his platform, and why I say he is genuine and forthright - he continues to strive to implement what he believes in, even after losing the democrat primary, and is effective in doing so.
https://arstechnica.com/science/201...lic-and-lawmakers-drug-maker-pauses-89k-drug/
What's Hillary been up to the last month or so, besides tweeting. Anybody know?
https://arstechnica.com/science/201...lic-and-lawmakers-drug-maker-pauses-89k-drug/
What's Hillary been up to the last month or so, besides tweeting. Anybody know?
Well, this dynamic is true of EVERYTHING, not just political parties. Absent an extant monopoly, the point of stability of any dynamic system is going to be the emergence of two major players.
--Patrick
Necronic
Staff member
Hmm. I guess he didn't.
But I don't see it as an issue that divides our country. The Republican Party has been severely swelled by collectivists in the past few years, and the democrats have their own form of individualism creeping in.
I don't see how those issues divide the country if they are so interlaced through the parties.
If that was true all ecosystems would result in 1 predator vs 1 prey...
Also, see any other political system not using 1st past the post.
And in politics there are enough diverging views on issues to sustain more then two parties... just look at Gas with his libertarian views, that he himself says mean he's not a republican.
GasBandit
Staff member
You do have a point about "first past the post." That needs to go. I doubt it will without a catastrophic impetus.
Except that there's no such thing as an unbreakable contract. Not in free countries anyway.
And the freedom to join or leave an association is kind of the main thing about the right to free association...
Signing a contract under no duress, is, by definition, the essence of the right to free association.
Unless you think the employee should be force into "diversity" hires, i don't see how you can object to that...
Oh, so you can see the difference.Then maybe you should have put it that way to begin with, instead
And again, i was accusing you of using the same deflection techniques as her... a point you're quite free to rebut.
As for the other connotations... it's not like bankrupt has positive connotation either...
Do you remember what the point of the "parable" was? Until you actually are a 3rd party, it doesn't really matter, does it.
Did you even have a candidate last year? And didn't Ron Paul run as a Rep in 2012?
Well post keep popping up while i write...
But i was going with this:
"It doesn't actually fall along "perfect" political divisions among the two major parties, though Republican ideology does tend more toward the individualist and Democrat ideology more toward the collectivist, but as you note, you don't have to dig hard to find contradictions.
That being said, the larger, vaguer debate of "how big a role should government have in the lives of its citizens" tends to yield more easily discernible divisions.
The only true out-and-out individualists, of course, are the Libertarian"
It's true that you did have a caveat, so good for you there.
Yeah, you should really stop doing that... Mr. Individuality vs Collectivism
No, because you used one of those fun house mirrors. As per the rest of my post.
Last edited:
GasBandit
Staff member
Try starting a new enterprise in new york that doesn't use union labor, see how free that association feels.
Yes, I posted extensively about the Libertarian candidate, Gary Johnson. Who I voted for. Which I also posted repeatedly.[DOUBLEPOST=1487109328,1487109252][/DOUBLEPOST]
Again, you're misrepresenting. I said there was a great division between individualists and collectivists, not that everybody is either an individualist or a collectivist.Yeah, you should really stop doing that... Mr. Individuality vs Collectivism
This is empty noise.
It's not my point, it's been proven mathematically that consolidating parties is the most advantageous strategy in such a system.
There's even a name for it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger's_law
Now who said unions can't act in counter productive, or even criminal ways? It's a danger with any "association" (gangs are ones too).
But that doesn't actually address the point, does it.
Oh right, the Green party is the vaccine lady... and he ran in 2012 too.
Well, keep trying i guess... even if it's unlikely to work while retaining 1st-past-the-post (funny how Trump was the "grenade" candidate, when there where actual options beyond the main 2).
Then you clearly framed it badly, because i'm not the only one who took it that way.
And you still said: "That being said, the larger, vaguer debate of "how big a role should government have in the lives of its citizens" tends to yield more easily discernible divisions."
But hey, glad we cleared that up.
Well you did ignore the rest of the previous post, so i guess it would seem that way to you now.
Let me try again:
"A more apt parallel would be pointing out that "commie socialists who want to live on welfare and not contribute" are gonna always be on the democrat side.
Either that, or they're going to "waste their vote" (the funny thing is that, if everyone who didn't vote would "waste" it, a 3rd party would win in a landslide... 48% of 55% isn't even 30% of the votes)."
GasBandit
Staff member
It's "your point" in that you were the one who brought it up in the discussion. That it has been proven doesn't mean it wasn't a point you were making.
Seriously, just because I say something, don't feel the need to immediately take a contrary position.
I think she's accepted that her time as a public figure is over. She's not speaking at the DNC in 2020. I don't even think she gets those private speeches anymore. I saw talk of her getting a TV show but I can't imagine anyone who wants to hear a damn thing from Hillary Clinton again.
1 predator v. 1 prey is two simultaneous monopolies, one on predation and one as prey. As for sustaining two parties, I didn't not say that all other competitors would vanish, just that they would not dominate.
Well actually that's not literally what I wrote, but it is what I meant.
--Patrick
Last edited:
Hillary apparently is very impressive in person, according to a Republican family member who detests the Clintons, but had a chance to hear her speak at a fundraising dinner. It'd be pretty interesting if now that she can basically no longer run for office, she lets her hair down and we end up seeing Bad Bitch Clinton.
I should've told you to save the effort. I'm well aware of what you see.
I was telling you what I see. I just don't see those groups as the actual source of tensions in your Country. It still just looks like it's fundamentally race and class, with a great swath of the lower class being tricked by the wealthy and powerful, through those founding myths of Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness (and wealth!), into thinking that they too are part of that "upper class."
That's the quick and half-assed version of what I see. Unfortunately, I don't have the stienmotivation to expound in sufficient detail to facilitate an illuminating discourse on the topic. So, uh, yeah. Too many big words hurt my thinker.
[
I rambled again. But my point is that class warfare is a thing, but most of it is a smokescreen.
But what you're seeing is a perverted version of that, which is why I said I see it more as "collectivism that helps me" vs. "Collectivism that helps society." And I see so many of the projected stereotypes of people on government assistance and the like in my mom, who will acknowledge that she needed those government programs when she was young, but she eventually didn't, but she buys into the lies that most people on welfare are just free loading forever while not working. Instead of getting mad at the people inflating costs beyond their with, or at wages not keeping up with inflation, she gets mad at people who work three jobs and can't get by for daring to get government assistance when she can't. And the frustrating thing is that when I break down the things she gets mad about, I can tell that she actually knows the underlying issues but she's complete indoctrinated to think that it's the poor stealing from her. Or that society is fucked because all these kids with liberal arts degrees are stealing blue collar jobs from people who have way more job experience.I should've told you to save the effort. I'm well aware of what you see.
I was telling you what I see. I just don't see those groups as the actual source of tensions in your Country. It still just looks like it's fundamentally race and class, with a great swath of the lower class being tricked by the wealthy and powerful, through those founding myths of Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness (and wealth!), into thinking that they too are part of that "upper class."
That's the quick and half-assed version of what I see. Unfortunately, I don't have the stienmotivation to expound in sufficient detail to facilitate an illuminating discourse on the topic. So, uh, yeah. Too many big words hurt my thinker.
I rambled again. But my point is that class warfare is a thing, but most of it is a smokescreen.
Others here can assuredly correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it in 1984 where they talk about how the "real struggle" is between the middle and upper classes? The middle class leverages the poor to displace the upper class, where the poor never really get any better, and are just a tool of whomever wants power? Or something similar. Or I might be thinking of another dystopian novel. Any corroboration/correction available?
Your "most of it is a smokescreen" got that popping in my head again, but it was some time ago when I came across that.
My very vague recollection is that the middle class equivalent, the outer Party, are the main target of the surveillance/oppression apparatus precisely because they are the ones with the means, know-how, and motivation to overthrow the state. The proles have more freedom of movement and are far less surveilled (I recall there being a conversation out in the open about buying black-market butter) because they are uneducated, pliable, and not expected to give trouble.[DOUBLEPOST=1487174601,1487174148][/DOUBLEPOST]Refugee Rape Mobs on New Year's Eve Were a Hoax, Say German Police
I feel like the argument could get to its roots if we had more say in what was done with each person's taxes in particular. As it is, each side sees a chunk of their income going to things they don't agree with because it all ends up in the same amorphous government pot.
I'm not so sure the issue is so much with where it's going as it is with where it's coming from. I know the rhetoric is "I don't wanna subsidize no freeloaders," but I'm sure the underlying cause is really, "I don't want any of MY money subsidizing those freeloaders."
--Patrick
Just get the planned parenthood accountants to manage the budget. They can make sure there's no amorphous pot.
Well if that's how you want to see it, then there's never one monopoly, it's always 1 firm and 1 body of consumers.
Analogies fall apart if we nitpick them...
Don't worry, i took it as such.
But what i meant was that there are enough ideologies that appeal to people that having only two major players would not cover everyone's actual views right. Which is exactly how it is in the US.
On the one hand, FPTP voting is horrible and needs to go die in a corner. On the other hand, even if it's difficult, it isn't entirely impossible for third parties to emerge. Look at the UK, Tories and Labour have dominated for literal centuries, but the Liberals, UKIP, and the Nationalist parties (mostly Scottish) have managed to squeak by and actually influence politics.
On the gripping hand, more representative systems either "build in" a bias towards the biggest/bigger parties (à la Greece where the biggest party gets almost 20% of the seats in parliament as a free extra, to ensure "stability"), or they...."tend towards" the less decisive (à la Belgium, where governments with 8 parties aren't all that uncommon) and even more pork spending to appease each and every support group a little.
There's no single "best" system. Though a system like the US has does lend itself to ever-increasing barriers towards entry, as the same two ("opposing") groups will happily work together to prevent a third from butting in. Gerrymandering, voter intimidation, vote fraud, and all that are part of the problem, but it's hard to see who could possibly be in charge of keeping things straight since literally anyone put in charge there would be incredibly powerful and need oversight...and thus be part of/under control of the establishment it has to check. It's one of those places where it's hard for C&B to work properly.
On the gripping hand, more representative systems either "build in" a bias towards the biggest/bigger parties (à la Greece where the biggest party gets almost 20% of the seats in parliament as a free extra, to ensure "stability"), or they...."tend towards" the less decisive (à la Belgium, where governments with 8 parties aren't all that uncommon) and even more pork spending to appease each and every support group a little.
There's no single "best" system. Though a system like the US has does lend itself to ever-increasing barriers towards entry, as the same two ("opposing") groups will happily work together to prevent a third from butting in. Gerrymandering, voter intimidation, vote fraud, and all that are part of the problem, but it's hard to see who could possibly be in charge of keeping things straight since literally anyone put in charge there would be incredibly powerful and need oversight...and thus be part of/under control of the establishment it has to check. It's one of those places where it's hard for C&B to work properly.
Yes. And the two dominant players know this, and so they give just enough lip service that all the people who prefer party #3 and below hear just enough going their way that they don't feel strongly enough to break away from their preferred of the two dominant parties and instead vote for party #3 and below.
--Patrick
GasBandit
Staff member
The "Day Without Immigrants" protest is meant to raise awareness as sort of a half-hearted universal boycott. This is actually the second one of these I've experienced, there was one a few years ago as well, and it felt exactly the same.
As I live in Texas, most of the "immigrants" are hispanic. Basically, most of the hispanic people in my town stayed home today all day, refusing to go to work or spend money in any local stores or restaurants, etc. I guess the idea is to make local businesses and residents realize "what an important part of the local community" immigrants are.
Unfortunately, I don't think that was the effect.
All I and my other white friends know is that traffic was much nicer on every road, the wait times at every store and restaurant we went to was much shorter, everything was less crowded, and all in all today was just a really pleasant day.
I mean, yeah, some businesses closed for the day out of solidarity, but none of the ones we really ever go to - it's not like the big grocery stores closed, or the chain restaurants, or the movie theaters, etc. So really, that didn't affect us at all.
It kinda left me wishing they had more of these protest days.
Oh, and I should also note, that some callers got REALLY MAD at our spanish station DJs for showing up to work.