Total Posts:183|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Personal Liberty/Self Harm

Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2010 8:40:42 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
I've been pondering the issue of illegal drugs and the rather absurd situation we have in the UK.

We recently had the controversey of meow-meow, sold as plant fertiliser it provided a very cheap and very dangerous high, it was perfectly legal to buy, sell and use because there no specific laws against it. 20 deaths later the Government bans it.

However, meow-meow is just one of many 'chemical highs' and they are all legal unless specifically prohibted. I have the legal right to shove any random chemical into my body so long as I am not trying to kill myself or it has not specifically stated that I can't.

Doesn't that strike anyone as odd? Illogical, inconsistent etc?

Surely you should be free to do whatever you want with your own body, or there should be some set of legal principles with universal application?

On a related note when should the state (or any form of external authority be it parents, family, village elders, police, the supreme obergruppenfuhrer of sector 319 etc) be allowed to intervene in matters that are solely of a personal nature?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2010 8:56:13 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Ostracism is underestimated as a good check on drug use.

Drug opponents are worried that if drugs are legalized, lots of people will do them, have health problems, and nothing will ever get done in society because everyone is high. What they fail to realize is that most professional jobs drug test. Not because corporations really care about following the law, but because you are an investment.

They train/promote/rely on you. They can't afford to have employees doing meth. While its not tested for directly, there is definite pressure against heavy smokers and drinkers.

Under drug legalization, there are still going to be all these checks on drug use. These checks are arguably more powerful than drug laws, given the utter failure of government enforcement.

At this point, anti-druggies can only argue that pre-professionals will use drugs more. But the high salary and working conditions offered at many professional jobs already serve as a disincentive. If I couldn't be an engineer, I would be so high right now.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2010 8:57:12 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/29/2010 8:40:42 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
On a related note when should the state (or any form of external authority be it parents, family, village elders, police, the supreme obergruppenfuhrer of sector 319 etc) be allowed to intervene in matters that are solely of a personal nature?

As far as I see it, my body, my rules. If I want to take a cyanide capsule, why stop me? If I want to light a spliff in the comfort of my own home, why stop me?
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2010 8:59:22 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Your body is your own sancrosanct property, and you can put into it what you what, but doesn't the state have a responsibility to regulate the chemicals out there that are known to present public safety risks?

My philosophy is that, while yes, you have a right to do to your body what you wish, the state is an entity designed first and foremost to provide safety and protection to citizens, and it should keep an eye on the chemicals released out into the world, inform citizens of the dangers, and if necessary, try and curtail the usage of those chemicals if they're leading to mass harm among the population, whether that's collective or individual harm.

And it is possible to mitigate the harmful effects of these chemicals without punishing those that actually ingest the crap - just means you go after the supplier, instead of the folks getting high. Take the problem out at the roots.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2010 9:02:43 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Sorry for the typos, sleep deprived.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2010 9:13:59 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/29/2010 8:59:22 AM, Volkov wrote:
Your body is your own sancrosanct property, and you can put into it what you what, but doesn't the state have a responsibility to regulate the chemicals out there that are known to present public safety risks?

If a product says 'Cyanide', and I buy it, I know what to expect. If the product says 'Double Chocolate Chip Cookies', and it's actually Cyanide, the company is at fault big time. So to that extent, yes.


My philosophy is that, while yes, you have a right to do to your body what you wish, the state is an entity designed first and foremost to provide safety and protection to citizens, and it should keep an eye on the chemicals released out into the world, inform citizens of the dangers, and if necessary, try and curtail the usage of those chemicals if they're leading to mass harm among the population, whether that's collective or individual harm.

If those chemicals will be harmful to a person without their consent, yes.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2010 9:17:05 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/29/2010 9:16:00 AM, Sieben wrote:
Government doesn't care if you live or die guys...

If we all die the government has no purpose. Furthermore if people die because of lack of government regulation that government is going to lose a lot of votes.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Korashk
Posts: 4,597
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2010 9:18:53 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/29/2010 8:40:42 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
On a related note when should the state (or any form of external authority be it parents, family, village elders, police, the supreme obergruppenfuhrer of sector 319 etc) be allowed to intervene in matters that are solely of a personal nature?

Never, under any circumstances.
When large numbers of otherwise-law abiding people break specific laws en masse, it's usually a fault that lies with the law. - Unknown
Korashk
Posts: 4,597
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2010 9:22:00 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/29/2010 9:18:53 AM, Korashk wrote:
At 8/29/2010 8:40:42 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
On a related note when should the state (or any form of external authority be it parents, family, village elders, police, the supreme obergruppenfuhrer of sector 319 etc) be allowed to intervene in matters that are solely of a personal nature?

Never, under any circumstances.

...as long as the actor has personhood.
When large numbers of otherwise-law abiding people break specific laws en masse, it's usually a fault that lies with the law. - Unknown
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2010 9:22:56 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/29/2010 8:59:22 AM, Volkov wrote:
My philosophy is that, while yes, you have a right to do to your body what you wish, the state is an entity designed first and foremost to provide safety and protection to citizens,

Who died and made your philosophy the best of em all? :P

and it should keep an eye on the chemicals released out into the world, inform citizens of the dangers, and if necessary, try and curtail the usage of those chemicals if they're leading to mass harm among the population, whether that's collective or individual harm.

Agree on the information bit - disagree on any steps by the government to go beyond a warning and try to physically (or otherwise) prevent one from making their own decisions. Most drug offenses are victimless crimes. If other citizens (non-users) are being significantly affected, then that's another issue. Can you cite examples where drug use by NON-USERS has harmed those non-users in any way? If so, do you deny that there are *far more* incidents where people have been harmed by legal things - like alcohol - which I know you intake?
President of DDO
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2010 9:23:44 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/29/2010 9:16:00 AM, Sieben wrote:
Government doesn't care if you live or die guys...

I'm pretty sure the existence of any government is dependent on living citizens to fund it.
President of DDO
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2010 9:28:15 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/29/2010 9:17:05 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
If we all die the government has no purpose.
Right maybe the government cares about nuclear holocausts. How successfully incentives have been aligned.
Furthermore if people die because of lack of government regulation that government is going to lose a lot of votes.

A lot of people already die because of government regulation in medicine/highways/drugs/wars. It doesn't matter because democracy is a very simple game that is very easy for the elites to win.

The chance that any individual vote will make a difference is low. There is no incentive to invest time and energy into serious voting. Everyone votes irrationally/ignorantly. Special interests agitate for privileges, and succeed because no one is paying attention.

Even without special interests, both candidates position themselves as close to the median voter as possible to maximize votes. You wind up with two nearly identical candidates and voters have no real choice.

I don't know of any game theorists who advocate democracy.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2010 9:31:27 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Before saying what laws I would pass...

I usually like to think about the Ethics of it on a personal level first.

I know that I would act to physically prevent a close friend or relative from sticking random chemicals up their nose... whether they Want to or not.

I'd prolly look to restrict their access to such things...

and ideally keep'em under lock-down for a bit if they're an addict.

However... if they continued doing so no matter what I do... I'd eventually give up.

also... if they were convinced the thing was non-harmful and convinced me of that... and simply did it for recreational purposes..... I wouldn't try to prevent them... unless they got out of hand.

so... being that the State can't really keep tabs on each person's personal situation as I personally would for people close to me... I'd rather have them stay out of it.

although... I could see not letting people sell literal POISON like fertilizer for Recreational purposes.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2010 9:35:11 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/29/2010 9:28:15 AM, Sieben wrote:
At 8/29/2010 9:17:05 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
If we all die the government has no purpose.
Right maybe the government cares about nuclear holocausts. How successfully incentives have been aligned.

Why would the government want nuclear holocaust? They desire it so much they built numerous nuclear shelters and educated the public on what to do during nuclear warfare?

Furthermore if people die because of lack of government regulation that government is going to lose a lot of votes.

A lot of people already die because of government regulation in medicine/highways/drugs/wars. It doesn't matter because democracy is a very simple game that is very easy for the elites to win.

That's because the majority are oblivious the facts. If crime does rise as mentioned above the government gets criticised.


The chance that any individual vote will make a difference is low. There is no incentive to invest time and energy into serious voting. Everyone votes irrationally/ignorantly. Special interests agitate for privileges, and succeed because no one is paying attention.

*sigh* If everyone decides their vote doesn't count the one vote will matter a lot. The "You're vote doesn't count" is BS from Anarchist to discourage voting.


Even without special interests, both candidates position themselves as close to the median voter as possible to maximize votes. You wind up with two nearly identical candidates and voters have no real choice.

Right, because McCain would have enacted everyone of Obamas policies.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2010 9:35:20 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/29/2010 9:31:27 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
although... I could see not letting people sell literal POISON like fertilizer for Recreational purposes.

1) Why not?

2) How do you know what peoples intentions are when buying a product? I just bought spray paint to fix up a piece of furniture, not graffiti on someone's property. Should spray paint be illegal?
President of DDO
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2010 9:50:48 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/29/2010 9:35:11 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 8/29/2010 9:28:15 AM, Sieben wrote:
At 8/29/2010 9:17:05 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
If we all die the government has no purpose.
Right maybe the government cares about nuclear holocausts. How successfully incentives have been aligned.

Why would the government want nuclear holocaust? They desire it so much they built numerous nuclear shelters and educated the public on what to do during nuclear warfare?
I didn't say the wanted nuclear holocaust. I am agreeing that the government probably doesn't want their whole population to be wiped out. My point is that this is about as far as it goes.

The government doesn't care if tens of thousands of people die needlessly. See roads/drugs/wars etc. The government might even want people to die for propaganda purposes. Without arguing 9/11 was a conspiracay, you have to admit that it really helped the bush administration push its agenda.

Bottom line is they've got nearly nil incentive to look after you.

Furthermore if people die because of lack of government regulation that government is going to lose a lot of votes.

A lot of people already die because of government regulation in medicine/highways/drugs/wars. It doesn't matter because democracy is a very simple game that is very easy for the elites to win.

That's because the majority are oblivious the facts. If crime does rise as mentioned above the government gets criticised.
This doesn't mean government has to seriously try to treat the problem. They can pass a couple of dummy regulations, or reform laws to make things even worse (but better for themselves).


The chance that any individual vote will make a difference is low. There is no incentive to invest time and energy into serious voting. Everyone votes irrationally/ignorantly. Special interests agitate for privileges, and succeed because no one is paying attention.

*sigh* If everyone decides their vote doesn't count the one vote will matter a lot. The "You're vote doesn't count" is BS from Anarchist to discourage voting.
1/10,000,000 is pretty close to zero. I don't think its BS.

Even without special interests, both candidates position themselves as close to the median voter as possible to maximize votes. You wind up with two nearly identical candidates and voters have no real choice.

Right, because McCain would have enacted everyone of Obamas policies.
It would have been pretty close. They are both bought off by bankers, the military/prison industrial complex, telecom companies, insurance companies... More generally, see this chart. http://3.bp.blogspot.com...

I think they differed on abortion, because mccain wanted slightly stricter abortion and obama wanted slightly less strict abortion. Wow what a choice.

There are good reasons why candidates would position themselves as closely together as possible. Being radical has no payoff.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2010 9:58:43 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/29/2010 9:50:48 AM, Sieben wrote:
At 8/29/2010 9:35:11 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 8/29/2010 9:28:15 AM, Sieben wrote:
At 8/29/2010 9:17:05 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
If we all die the government has no purpose.
Right maybe the government cares about nuclear holocausts. How successfully incentives have been aligned.

Why would the government want nuclear holocaust? They desire it so much they built numerous nuclear shelters and educated the public on what to do during nuclear warfare?
I didn't say the wanted nuclear holocaust. I am agreeing that the government probably doesn't want their whole population to be wiped out. My point is that this is about as far as it goes.

Ok.


The government doesn't care if tens of thousands of people die needlessly. See roads/drugs/wars etc. The government might even want people to die for propaganda purposes. Without arguing 9/11 was a conspiracay, you have to admit that it really helped the bush administration push its agenda.

Or 9/11 changed their agenda. I won't argue that they had a pro-war outlook, but there was huge pressure to act upon 9/11 from the public.


Bottom line is they've got nearly nil incentive to look after you.

They do. Why do you think Britain and Scandinavia introduced its welfare state? Why do you think Obama enacted the healthcare reforms?


Furthermore if people die because of lack of government regulation that government is going to lose a lot of votes.

A lot of people already die because of government regulation in medicine/highways/drugs/wars. It doesn't matter because democracy is a very simple game that is very easy for the elites to win.

That's because the majority are oblivious the facts. If crime does rise as mentioned above the government gets criticised.
This doesn't mean government has to seriously try to treat the problem. They can pass a couple of dummy regulations, or reform laws to make things even worse (but better for themselves).

And they still get criticised if something isn't done. Besides, crime geenrally is a problem for a nation, and votes too.



The chance that any individual vote will make a difference is low. There is no incentive to invest time and energy into serious voting. Everyone votes irrationally/ignorantly. Special interests agitate for privileges, and succeed because no one is paying attention.

*sigh* If everyone decides their vote doesn't count the one vote will matter a lot. The "You're vote doesn't count" is BS from Anarchist to discourage voting.
1/10,000,000 is pretty close to zero. I don't think its BS.

And if those 10,000,000 people think their vote worthless, and then 1 vote counts a lot. It's like saying buying shares is worthless because you only have 1 share.


Even without special interests, both candidates position themselves as close to the median voter as possible to maximize votes. You wind up with two nearly identical candidates and voters have no real choice.

Right, because McCain would have enacted everyone of Obamas policies.
It would have been pretty close. They are both bought off by bankers, the military/prison industrial complex, telecom companies, insurance companies... More generally, see this chart. http://3.bp.blogspot.com...

And McCain would have pulled troops out of Iraq, and enacted healthcare reforms?


I think they differed on abortion, because mccain wanted slightly stricter abortion and obama wanted slightly less strict abortion. Wow what a choice.

Ever heard of the Mexico City Policy?


There are good reasons why candidates would position themselves as closely together as possible. Being radical has no payoff.

It did for FDR.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2010 10:20:07 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/29/2010 9:58:43 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Or 9/11 changed their agenda. I won't argue that they had a pro-war outlook, but there was huge pressure to act upon 9/11 from the public.
The administration rode the frenzy of public outrage to funnel taxes to the good ol' boys. No bid contracts, doubled military spending...

Bottom line is they've got nearly nil incentive to look after you.

They do. Why do you think Britain and Scandinavia introduced its welfare state? Why do you think Obama enacted the healthcare reforms?

Why do YOU think they are? Because he's such a nice guy? Because a bunch of men in fresh pressed suits really lose sleep if the unwashed masses get whooping cough?

This is not a disney movie. They're serving the insurance/medical industry. If you extend healthcare coverage to more americans without really addressing high healthcare costs from patent and licensing monopolies, you are just exploiting consumers of healthcare more.


Furthermore if people die because of lack of government regulation that government is going to lose a lot of votes.

A lot of people already die because of government regulation in medicine/highways/drugs/wars. It doesn't matter because democracy is a very simple game that is very easy for the elites to win.

That's because the majority are oblivious the facts. If crime does rise as mentioned above the government gets criticised.
This doesn't mean government has to seriously try to treat the problem. They can pass a couple of dummy regulations, or reform laws to make things even worse (but better for themselves).

And they still get criticised if something isn't done. Besides, crime geenrally is a problem for a nation, and votes too.

The government's remedy to periodic bank failures was the creation of the federal reserve. Rather than remove the policies that caused bank runs, they used the opportunity to institute a superbank that would subvert the interests of almost every american.

They get away with it because the candidates pick their campaign issues. Neither candidate wants to end the federal reserve, so neither candidate talks about it. They talk about gay marriage and abortion.

And if those 10,000,000 people think their vote worthless, and then 1 vote counts a lot. It's like saying buying shares is worthless because you only have 1 share.

This doesn't happen in practice because lots of people vote out of social pressure or to feel fuzzy. It it didn't happen, and one vote did make a difference, I doubt you would laud the glories of a democratic system decided by less than .01% of the population.


Even without special interests, both candidates position themselves as close to the median voter as possible to maximize votes. You wind up with two nearly identical candidates and voters have no real choice.

Right, because McCain would have enacted everyone of Obamas policies.
It would have been pretty close. They are both bought off by bankers, the military/prison industrial complex, telecom companies, insurance companies... More generally, see this chart. http://3.bp.blogspot.com...

And McCain would have pulled troops out of Iraq, and enacted healthcare reforms?
Iraq? Probably. But Obama has stepped up in other countries. Its plausible McCain would have done the same thing. The healthcare reforms are just more concessions to special interests, so that is also plausible.

You have it stuck in your head that these candidates are different. They are beholden to the same corporate interests.


I think they differed on abortion, because mccain wanted slightly stricter abortion and obama wanted slightly less strict abortion. Wow what a choice.

Ever heard of the Mexico City Policy?
Wow... its not even over whether abortion is legal or not. Its just whether the federal government can fund it. What a huge difference.

The democrats oppose this policy to get people like you to support them. They turn around and sell your future to special interests. Don't take the bait.

There are good reasons why candidates would position themselves as closely together as possible. Being radical has no payoff.

It did for FDR.
FDR merely extended the policies of Herbert Hoover, who despite what you have heard in your textbooks ran unprecedented deficits and economic intervention.

I don't really think you know anything about history or modern politics. To avoid future conflict over evidence, you should address my points theoretically instead of empirically. There will always be exceptions to rules...
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2010 10:33:54 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/29/2010 10:20:07 AM, Sieben wrote:
At 8/29/2010 9:58:43 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Or 9/11 changed their agenda. I won't argue that they had a pro-war outlook, but there was huge pressure to act upon 9/11 from the public.
The administration rode the frenzy of public outrage to funnel taxes to the good ol' boys. No bid contracts, doubled military spending...

Which was due to pressure from the public.


Bottom line is they've got nearly nil incentive to look after you.

They do. Why do you think Britain and Scandinavia introduced its welfare state? Why do you think Obama enacted the healthcare reforms?

Why do YOU think they are? Because he's such a nice guy? Because a bunch of men in fresh pressed suits really lose sleep if the unwashed masses get whooping cough?

Yes, because that destroys their productivity.


This is not a disney movie. They're serving the insurance/medical industry. If you extend healthcare coverage to more americans without really addressing high healthcare costs from patent and licensing monopolies, you are just exploiting consumers of healthcare more.

And pray tell why government institutions woudl enact such policies which are of detriment to the health market.



Furthermore if people die because of lack of government regulation that government is going to lose a lot of votes.

A lot of people already die because of government regulation in medicine/highways/drugs/wars. It doesn't matter because democracy is a very simple game that is very easy for the elites to win.

That's because the majority are oblivious the facts. If crime does rise as mentioned above the government gets criticised.
This doesn't mean government has to seriously try to treat the problem. They can pass a couple of dummy regulations, or reform laws to make things even worse (but better for themselves).

And they still get criticised if something isn't done. Besides, crime geenrally is a problem for a nation, and votes too.

The government's remedy to periodic bank failures was the creation of the federal reserve. Rather than remove the policies that caused bank runs, they used the opportunity to institute a superbank that would subvert the interests of almost every american.

They get away with it because the candidates pick their campaign issues. Neither candidate wants to end the federal reserve, so neither candidate talks about it. They talk about gay marriage and abortion.

And this has what to do with crime rates?


And if those 10,000,000 people think their vote worthless, and then 1 vote counts a lot. It's like saying buying shares is worthless because you only have 1 share.

This doesn't happen in practice because lots of people vote out of social pressure or to feel fuzzy. It it didn't happen, and one vote did make a difference, I doubt you would laud the glories of a democratic system decided by less than .01% of the population.

The Gore\ Bush race was down to a few hundred votes.



Even without special interests, both candidates position themselves as close to the median voter as possible to maximize votes. You wind up with two nearly identical candidates and voters have no real choice.

Right, because McCain would have enacted everyone of Obamas policies.
It would have been pretty close. They are both bought off by bankers, the military/prison industrial complex, telecom companies, insurance companies... More generally, see this chart. http://3.bp.blogspot.com...

And McCain would have pulled troops out of Iraq, and enacted healthcare reforms?
Iraq? Probably. But Obama has stepped up in other countries. Its plausible McCain would have done the same thing. The healthcare reforms are just more concessions to special interests, so that is also plausible.

McCain probably wouldn't have, he woudl have kept troops there, if not added more. And the healthcare market was mostly against the Healthcare reform.


You have it stuck in your head that these candidates are different. They are beholden to the same corporate interests.

I know they're swayed by corporate interest, but they do have differign opinions on a lot of issues, despite the fact a lot of these issues are wedge issues. Don't think I'm some Liberal who believes in fairytales, and understand the problem in America, I'm just not sucking off the paranoid Alex Joneses of the world.



I think they differed on abortion, because mccain wanted slightly stricter abortion and obama wanted slightly less strict abortion. Wow what a choice.

Ever heard of the Mexico City Policy?
Wow... its not even over whether abortion is legal or not. Its just whether the federal government can fund it. What a huge difference.

Eh, Federal funding means more abortions clinics. Kind of a deal.


The democrats oppose this policy to get people like you to support them. They turn around and sell your future to special interests. Don't take the bait.

I'm not 100% with the democrats, but they're better than the republicans.


There are good reasons why candidates would position themselves as closely together as possible. Being radical has no payoff.

It did for FDR.
FDR merely extended the policies of Herbert Hoover, who despite what you have heard in your textbooks ran unprecedented deficits and economic intervention.

My textboosk don't mention FDR other than WW2. Read mah profile.

Anyway, these policies worked to all but some right-wing revisionists. I'm not your man for this, JBlake is.


I don't really think you know anything about history or modern politics. To avoid future conflict over evidence, you should address my points theoretically instead of empirically. There will always be exceptions to rules...

I do know about modern politics and history, just not your representation of them.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2010 10:49:35 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/29/2010 10:33:54 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
The administration rode the frenzy of public outrage to funnel taxes to the good ol' boys. No bid contracts, doubled military spending...

Which was due to pressure from the public.
Yes the public reaally wanted Lockheed&Martin to make big bucks.

Bottom line is they've got nearly nil incentive to look after you.

They do. Why do you think Britain and Scandinavia introduced its welfare state? Why do you think Obama enacted the healthcare reforms?

Why do YOU think they are? Because he's such a nice guy? Because a bunch of men in fresh pressed suits really lose sleep if the unwashed masses get whooping cough?

Yes, because that destroys their productivity.
In democratic states, leaders have no incentive to favor long term policies. They will be out of office before they can take effect. You can't explain why the government really does waste tons of resources and kills many people needlessly.

This is not a disney movie. They're serving the insurance/medical industry. If you extend healthcare coverage to more americans without really addressing high healthcare costs from patent and licensing monopolies, you are just exploiting consumers of healthcare more.

And pray tell why government institutions woudl enact such policies which are of detriment to the health market.
It hurts consumers. It helps politically connected medical/pharma/providers. The latter are organized to influence politics.

The government's remedy to periodic bank failures was the creation of the federal reserve. Rather than remove the policies that caused bank runs, they used the opportunity to institute a superbank that would subvert the interests of almost every american.

They get away with it because the candidates pick their campaign issues. Neither candidate wants to end the federal reserve, so neither candidate talks about it. They talk about gay marriage and abortion.

And this has what to do with crime rates?
I'm not particularly familiar with crime rate legislation, so I brought up more important issues like currency. If I recall correctly, the cost of crime is a full order of magnitude less than the burden of government.

And if those 10,000,000 people think their vote worthless, and then 1 vote counts a lot. It's like saying buying shares is worthless because you only have 1 share.

This doesn't happen in practice because lots of people vote out of social pressure or to feel fuzzy. It it didn't happen, and one vote did make a difference, I doubt you would laud the glories of a democratic system decided by less than .01% of the population.

The Gore\ Bush race was down to a few hundred votes.
Could you have predicted that in advance? I never said elections couldn't be decided by one vote. I said the probability that you know your vote will significantly influence an election is slim.


Even without special interests, both candidates position themselves as close to the median voter as possible to maximize votes. You wind up with two nearly identical candidates and voters have no real choice.

Right, because McCain would have enacted everyone of Obamas policies.
It would have been pretty close. They are both bought off by bankers, the military/prison industrial complex, telecom companies, insurance companies... More generally, see this chart. http://3.bp.blogspot.com...

And McCain would have pulled troops out of Iraq, and enacted healthcare reforms?
Iraq? Probably. But Obama has stepped up in other countries. Its plausible McCain would have done the same thing. The healthcare reforms are just more concessions to special interests, so that is also plausible.

McCain probably wouldn't have, he woudl have kept troops there, if not added more. And the healthcare market was mostly against the Healthcare reform.
Really? Do you have any reason to believe this? Or is it just because he's a "republican".

Let me tell you the difference between republicans and democrats. Republicans' favorite color is blue and they pretend to be from texas. Democrats' favorite color is red and they give pretty speeches. They are beholden to the same corporate interests


You have it stuck in your head that these candidates are different. They are beholden to the same corporate interests.

I know they're swayed by corporate interest, but they do have differign opinions on a lot of issues, despite the fact a lot of these issues are wedge issues. Don't think I'm some Liberal who believes in fairytales, and understand the problem in America, I'm just not sucking off the paranoid Alex Joneses of the world.

Ahh and what key issues do they *really* disagree on? Really?


I think they differed on abortion, because mccain wanted slightly stricter abortion and obama wanted slightly less strict abortion. Wow what a choice.

Ever heard of the Mexico City Policy?
Wow... its not even over whether abortion is legal or not. Its just whether the federal government can fund it. What a huge difference.

Eh, Federal funding means more abortions clinics. Kind of a deal.
But its not even (il)legalization. Its like if the government outlawed selling milk at walmart. You would just go buy it at kmart even if it were a little more expensive. Demand for abortions is pretty inelastic. See coat-hangers.

The democrats oppose this policy to get people like you to support them. They turn around and sell your future to special interests. Don't take the bait.

I'm not 100% with the democrats, but they're better than the republicans.
Both parties represent corporate interests. Support neither.

There are good reasons why candidates would position themselves as closely together as possible. Being radical has no payoff.

It did for FDR.
FDR merely extended the policies of Herbert Hoover, who despite what you have heard in your textbooks ran unprecedented deficits and economic intervention.

My textboosk don't mention FDR other than WW2. Read mah profile.

Anyway, these policies worked to all but some right-wing revisionists. I'm not your man for this, JBlake is.

It doesn't matter if it worked or not. The point was that FDR was not the radical you think he is. The point of THAT was that radicals don't get elected. You are turning this argument into an incoherent mess.

As a remedy, I would suggest debating in theory instead of through your worldview. It will be faster for both of us if I'm not trying to deprogram you and you're not just changing the subject.

I already presented theory, so go back and address it.


I don't really think you know anything about history or modern politics. To avoid future conflict over evidence, you should address my points theoretically instead of empirically. There will always be exceptions to rules...

I do know about modern politics and history, just not your representation of them.
This whole conversation speaks to the contrary.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2010 11:21:00 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/29/2010 10:49:35 AM, Sieben wrote:
At 8/29/2010 10:33:54 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
The administration rode the frenzy of public outrage to funnel taxes to the good ol' boys. No bid contracts, doubled military spending...

Which was due to pressure from the public.
Yes the public reaally wanted Lockheed&Martin to make big bucks.

The public pressured the government to do something about 9/11, NOT the methods that they used to address it.

Yes, because that destroys their productivity.
In democratic states, leaders have no incentive to favor long term policies. They will be out of office before they can take effect. You can't explain why the government really does waste tons of resources and kills many people needlessly.

This is not a disney movie. They're serving the insurance/medical industry. If you extend healthcare coverage to more americans without really addressing high healthcare costs from patent and licensing monopolies, you are just exploiting consumers of healthcare more.

And pray tell why government institutions woudl enact such policies which are of detriment to the health market.
It hurts consumers. It helps politically connected medical/pharma/providers. The latter are organized to influence politics.

Government single payer helps the private healthcare companies?


The government's remedy to periodic bank failures was the creation of the federal reserve. Rather than remove the policies that caused bank runs, they used the opportunity to institute a superbank that would subvert the interests of almost every american.

They get away with it because the candidates pick their campaign issues. Neither candidate wants to end the federal reserve, so neither candidate talks about it. They talk about gay marriage and abortion.

And this has what to do with crime rates?
I'm not particularly familiar with crime rate legislation, so I brought up more important issues like currency. If I recall correctly, the cost of crime is a full order of magnitude less than the burden of government.

So you went off topic because you couldn't address my point. At least admit as much.


And if those 10,000,000 people think their vote worthless, and then 1 vote counts a lot. It's like saying buying shares is worthless because you only have 1 share.

This doesn't happen in practice because lots of people vote out of social pressure or to feel fuzzy. It it didn't happen, and one vote did make a difference, I doubt you would laud the glories of a democratic system decided by less than .01% of the population.

The Gore\ Bush race was down to a few hundred votes.
Could you have predicted that in advance? I never said elections couldn't be decided by one vote. I said the probability that you know your vote will significantly influence an election is slim.

O rly? You said it yourself, you can't predict it. Better be safe than sorry. It takes all of an hour, probably less to vote, after all.


And McCain would have pulled troops out of Iraq, and enacted healthcare reforms?
Iraq? Probably. But Obama has stepped up in other countries. Its plausible McCain would have done the same thing. The healthcare reforms are just more concessions to special interests, so that is also plausible.

McCain probably wouldn't have, he woudl have kept troops there, if not added more. And the healthcare market was mostly against the Healthcare reform.
Really? Do you have any reason to believe this? Or is it just because he's a "republican".

Let me tell you the difference between republicans and democrats. Republicans' favorite color is blue and they pretend to be from texas. Democrats' favorite color is red and they give pretty speeches. They are beholden to the same corporate interests

Yew got it wrong. Same corporate interests yes, but decidedly different on issues.



You have it stuck in your head that these candidates are different. They are beholden to the same corporate interests.

I know they're swayed by corporate interest, but they do have differign opinions on a lot of issues, despite the fact a lot of these issues are wedge issues. Don't think I'm some Liberal who believes in fairytales, and understand the problem in America, I'm just not sucking off the paranoid Alex Joneses of the world.

Ahh and what key issues do they *really* disagree on? Really?

Abortion rights, Gun rights, foreign policy, affirmative action, death penalty, the economy, need I go on? They agree to a lot of things, but geenrally if A democrat advocates something, a republican won't like it, and vica versa.



I think they differed on abortion, because mccain wanted slightly stricter abortion and obama wanted slightly less strict abortion. Wow what a choice.

Ever heard of the Mexico City Policy?
Wow... its not even over whether abortion is legal or not. Its just whether the federal government can fund it. What a huge difference.

Eh, Federal funding means more abortions clinics. Kind of a deal.
But its not even (il)legalization. Its like if the government outlawed selling milk at walmart. You would just go buy it at kmart even if it were a little more expensive. Demand for abortions is pretty inelastic. See coat-hangers.

Eh, there's an option of eating or dying. There's the option of giving birth, followed by adoption, or getting an abortion


The democrats oppose this policy to get people like you to support them. They turn around and sell your future to special interests. Don't take the bait.

I'm not 100% with the democrats, but they're better than the republicans.
Both parties represent corporate interests. Support neither.

My politics goes betetr with the Democrats. It doesn't concern me anyway, I'm not American.


There are good reasons why candidates would position themselves as closely together as possible. Being radical has no payoff.

It did for FDR.
FDR merely extended the policies of Herbert Hoover, who despite what you have heard in your textbooks ran unprecedented deficits and economic intervention.

My textboosk don't mention FDR other than WW2. Read mah profile.

Anyway, these policies worked to all but some right-wing revisionists. I'm not your man for this, JBlake is.

It doesn't matter if it worked or not. The point was that FDR was not the radical you think he is. The point of THAT was that radicals don't get elected. You are turning this argument into an incoherent mess.

FDR's policies were msotly unheard of. They were more extreme than Hoovers. Again, talk to JBlake about this, I'm not an expert.


As a remedy, I would suggest debating in theory instead of through your worldview. It will be faster for both of us if I'm not trying to deprogram you and you're not just changing the subject.

Eh, wut?


I already presented theory, so go back and address it.

Where?
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2010 11:22:21 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
I'm with most of the libertarians who believe that you should be able to do with your body as you please, but don't let it effect others as a result or in the process.

A couple years ago i heard about salvia. People were getting high off of salvia, and using it in a variety of ways. Silly me, i assumed it was the common stuff in the garden, but i didn't smoke any or any other sort of use, but it did cross my mind. It is actually a specific variety of salvia called salvia divinorum. http://www.salvia.net... It is legal to have and to grow in most states and most countries, and i really don't see the big deal. If someone wants to take a 40 minute departure from reality why should i care?

I agree with much of what Matt said about people near to me, and wanting to hedge off the horror of addiction. However, an addict is always an addict, and once the addiction is active there are few options to control it.

However, one option would be to minimize it's damage. If you had a variety of products available that are fully understood in their effects, those who want to get high, will most likely take the safest product to attain their desired state. By banning so many different products we limit both availability and understanding of what is potentially available. During prohibition people were drinking horrific substances to try and get drunk, and the damage was great. It stands to reason that we could provide less dangerous substances to take the place of the dangerous ones if our attitude was less puritanical.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2010 11:35:31 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/29/2010 11:21:00 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Which was due to pressure from the public.
Yes the public reaally wanted Lockheed&Martin to make big bucks.

The public pressured the government to do something about 9/11, NOT the methods that they used to address it.
The point is that 9/11 benefited the administration and their buddies. Stay on topic.
Yes, because that destroys their productivity.
In democratic states, leaders have no incentive to favor long term policies. They will be out of office before they can take effect. You can't explain why the government really does waste tons of resources and kills many people needlessly.

This is not a disney movie. They're serving the insurance/medical industry. If you extend healthcare coverage to more americans without really addressing high healthcare costs from patent and licensing monopolies, you are just exploiting consumers of healthcare more.

And pray tell why government institutions woudl enact such policies which are of detriment to the health market.
It hurts consumers. It helps politically connected medical/pharma/providers. The latter are organized to influence politics.

Government single payer helps the private healthcare companies?
If you increase health expenditures, you are helping people who sell health products and services...

The government's remedy to periodic bank failures was the creation of the federal reserve. Rather than remove the policies that caused bank runs, they used the opportunity to institute a superbank that would subvert the interests of almost every american.

They get away with it because the candidates pick their campaign issues. Neither candidate wants to end the federal reserve, so neither candidate talks about it. They talk about gay marriage and abortion.

And this has what to do with crime rates?
I'm not particularly familiar with crime rate legislation, so I brought up more important issues like currency. If I recall correctly, the cost of crime is a full order of magnitude less than the burden of government.

So you went off topic because you couldn't address my point. At least admit as much.
It is "on" the topic of government regulating in its own interests rather than the public's.

And if those 10,000,000 people think their vote worthless, and then 1 vote counts a lot. It's like saying buying shares is worthless because you only have 1 share.

This doesn't happen in practice because lots of people vote out of social pressure or to feel fuzzy. It it didn't happen, and one vote did make a difference, I doubt you would laud the glories of a democratic system decided by less than .01% of the population.

The Gore\ Bush race was down to a few hundred votes.
Could you have predicted that in advance? I never said elections couldn't be decided by one vote. I said the probability that you know your vote will significantly influence an election is slim.

O rly? You said it yourself, you can't predict it. Better be safe than sorry. It takes all of an hour, probably less to vote, after all.
You can't predict anything but you can make intelligent guesses about probabilities. If you flip a coin 100 times, it will come up tails at least once. Probably. Care to take the bet? Better safe than sorrry.

And its not just the time it takes to vote. Its the time it takes to figure out which candidate and which policies are marginally better than the others.

And McCain would have pulled troops out of Iraq, and enacted healthcare reforms?
Iraq? Probably. But Obama has stepped up in other countries. Its plausible McCain would have done the same thing. The healthcare reforms are just more concessions to special interests, so that is also plausible.

McCain probably wouldn't have, he woudl have kept troops there, if not added more. And the healthcare market was mostly against the Healthcare reform.
Really? Do you have any reason to believe this? Or is it just because he's a "republican".

Let me tell you the difference between republicans and democrats. Republicans' favorite color is blue and they pretend to be from texas. Democrats' favorite color is red and they give pretty speeches. They are beholden to the same corporate interests

Yew got it wrong. Same corporate interests yes, but decidedly different on issues.
Uhhh trivial issues like gay marriage and abortion. Compared to the federal reserve their differences are peanuts.


Ahh and what key issues do they *really* disagree on? Really?

Abortion rights, Gun rights, foreign policy, affirmative action, death penalty, the economy, need I go on? They agree to a lot of things, but geenrally if A democrat advocates something, a republican won't like it, and vica versa.
Their foreign policy is the same. Neither have significant affirmative action policies. The death penalty does not affect most americans. They are the same on economic issues. They both support the federal reserve. They both support stimulus for the same corporations. They both support the minimum wage... it goes on and on.

Eh, there's an option of eating or dying. There's the option of giving birth, followed by adoption, or getting an abortion
Changing the subject again... the point was that federal funding for abortions is such a small issue compared to many many much larger issues both parties agree on.

The democrats oppose this policy to get people like you to support them. They turn around and sell your future to special interests. Don't take the bait.

I'm not 100% with the democrats, but they're better than the republicans.
Both parties represent corporate interests. Support neither.

My politics goes betetr with the Democrats. It doesn't concern me anyway, I'm not American.
You still pretend like both parties are significantly different. Whether it matters to you is just subjective. It has no bearing on this conversation.

There are good reasons why candidates would position themselves as closely together as possible. Being radical has no payoff.

It did for FDR.
FDR merely extended the policies of Herbert Hoover, who despite what you have heard in your textbooks ran unprecedented deficits and economic intervention.

My textboosk don't mention FDR other than WW2. Read mah profile.

Anyway, these policies worked to all but some right-wing revisionists. I'm not your man for this, JBlake is.

It doesn't matter if it worked or not. The point was that FDR was not the radical you think he is. The point of THAT was that radicals don't get elected. You are turning this argument into an incoherent mess.

FDR's policies were msotly unheard of. They were more extreme than Hoovers. Again, talk to JBlake about this, I'm not an expert.

I'll just drop it. Its not worth it for me to school you on this.


As a remedy, I would suggest debating in theory instead of through your worldview. It will be faster for both of us if I'm not trying to deprogram you and you're not just changing the subject.

Eh, wut?


I already presented theory, so go back and address it.

Where?
Cognitive dissonance much? Read back. You are wasting my time.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2010 11:51:41 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/29/2010 11:35:31 AM, Sieben wrote:
At 8/29/2010 11:21:00 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Which was due to pressure from the public.
Yes the public reaally wanted Lockheed&Martin to make big bucks.

The public pressured the government to do something about 9/11, NOT the methods that they used to address it.
The point is that 9/11 benefited the administration and their buddies. Stay on topic.

Right, but they were pressured by the public too.

Yes, because that destroys their productivity.
In democratic states, leaders have no incentive to favor long term policies. They will be out of office before they can take effect. You can't explain why the government really does waste tons of resources and kills many people needlessly.

This is not a disney movie. They're serving the insurance/medical industry. If you extend healthcare coverage to more americans without really addressing high healthcare costs from patent and licensing monopolies, you are just exploiting consumers of healthcare more.

And pray tell why government institutions woudl enact such policies which are of detriment to the health market.
It hurts consumers. It helps politically connected medical/pharma/providers. The latter are organized to influence politics.

Government single payer helps the private healthcare companies?
If you increase health expenditures, you are helping people who sell health products and services...

But not helping those who offer health services.


The government's remedy to periodic bank failures was the creation of the federal reserve. Rather than remove the policies that caused bank runs, they used the opportunity to institute a superbank that would subvert the interests of almost every american.

They get away with it because the candidates pick their campaign issues. Neither candidate wants to end the federal reserve, so neither candidate talks about it. They talk about gay marriage and abortion.

And this has what to do with crime rates?
I'm not particularly familiar with crime rate legislation, so I brought up more important issues like currency. If I recall correctly, the cost of crime is a full order of magnitude less than the burden of government.

So you went off topic because you couldn't address my point. At least admit as much.
It is "on" the topic of government regulating in its own interests rather than the public's.

We were discussing crime, not finance


And if those 10,000,000 people think their vote worthless, and then 1 vote counts a lot. It's like saying buying shares is worthless because you only have 1 share.

This doesn't happen in practice because lots of people vote out of social pressure or to feel fuzzy. It it didn't happen, and one vote did make a difference, I doubt you would laud the glories of a democratic system decided by less than .01% of the population.

The Gore\ Bush race was down to a few hundred votes.
Could you have predicted that in advance? I never said elections couldn't be decided by one vote. I said the probability that you know your vote will significantly influence an election is slim.

O rly? You said it yourself, you can't predict it. Better be safe than sorry. It takes all of an hour, probably less to vote, after all.
You can't predict anything but you can make intelligent guesses about probabilities. If you flip a coin 100 times, it will come up tails at least once. Probably. Care to take the bet? Better safe than sorrry.

There's more to be gained by voting than flipping a coin.


And its not just the time it takes to vote. Its the time it takes to figure out which candidate and which policies are marginally better than the others.

Obviously, but the act in itself isn't time consuming.


And McCain would have pulled troops out of Iraq, and enacted healthcare reforms?
Iraq? Probably. But Obama has stepped up in other countries. Its plausible McCain would have done the same thing. The healthcare reforms are just more concessions to special interests, so that is also plausible.

McCain probably wouldn't have, he woudl have kept troops there, if not added more. And the healthcare market was mostly against the Healthcare reform.
Really? Do you have any reason to believe this? Or is it just because he's a "republican".

Let me tell you the difference between republicans and democrats. Republicans' favorite color is blue and they pretend to be from texas. Democrats' favorite color is red and they give pretty speeches. They are beholden to the same corporate interests

Yew got it wrong. Same corporate interests yes, but decidedly different on issues.
Uhhh trivial issues like gay marriage and abortion. Compared to the federal reserve their differences are peanuts.

Oh because each party has identical, word for word economics policies.


Abortion rights, Gun rights, foreign policy, affirmative action, death penalty, the economy, need I go on? They agree to a lot of things, but geenrally if A democrat advocates something, a republican won't like it, and vica versa.
Their foreign policy is the same. Neither have significant affirmative action policies. The death penalty does not affect most americans. They are the same on economic issues. They both support the federal reserve. They both support stimulus for the same corporations. They both support the minimum wage... it goes on and on.

They're not the same on economic issue. Last time I checked republicans, in general, favoured supply-side economics, and the Dems did't


Eh, there's an option of eating or dying. There's the option of giving birth, followed by adoption, or getting an abortion
Changing the subject again... the point was that federal funding for abortions is such a small issue compared to many many much larger issues both parties agree on.

What's an issue is relevant to a nation.


I'm not 100% with the democrats, but they're better than the republicans.
Both parties represent corporate interests. Support neither.

My politics goes betetr with the Democrats. It doesn't concern me anyway, I'm not American.
You still pretend like both parties are significantly different. Whether it matters to you is just subjective. It has no bearing on this conversation.

Moving on.


It doesn't matter if it worked or not. The point was that FDR was not the radical you think he is. The point of THAT was that radicals don't get elected. You are turning this argument into an incoherent mess.

FDR's policies were msotly unheard of. They were more extreme than Hoovers. Again, talk to JBlake about this, I'm not an expert.

I'll just drop it. Its not worth it for me to school you on this.


As a remedy, I would suggest debating in theory instead of through your worldview. It will be faster for both of us if I'm not trying to deprogram you and you're not just changing the subject.

Eh, wut?


I already presented theory, so go back and address it.

Where?
Cognitive dissonance much? Read back. You are wasting my time.

I seem to wasting my time, and your wasting my time with your anarchist drivel. At this point it seems best we leave this discussion mutually.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2010 12:13:04 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/29/2010 11:51:41 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
The public pressured the government to do something about 9/11, NOT the methods that they used to address it.
The point is that 9/11 benefited the administration and their buddies. Stay on topic.

Right, but they were pressured by the public too.
You're not getting it.
But not helping those who offer health services.
If I can sell 100 cans of coke to people, but then the government institutes a policy to buy 200 of my cokes for people, I am benefiting.

We were discussing crime, not finance

No. We were discussing how the incentives faced by government actors leads them to push policies that benefit the ruling elite.

O rly? You said it yourself, you can't predict it. Better be safe than sorry. It takes all of an hour, probably less to vote, after all.
You can't predict anything but you can make intelligent guesses about probabilities. If you flip a coin 100 times, it will come up tails at least once. Probably. Care to take the bet? Better safe than sorrry.

There's more to be gained by voting than flipping a coin.
So? Its 1/10,000,000. The point is that no one votes seriously because of these odds.

Oh because each party has identical, word for word economics policies.
De facto yes.

They're not the same on economic issue. Last time I checked republicans, in general, favoured supply-side economics, and the Dems did't
In name only. And if you think that, the last time you checked was the 80's. The republicans have had virtually no economic philosophy since bush.

Eh, there's an option of eating or dying. There's the option of giving birth, followed by adoption, or getting an abortion
Changing the subject again... the point was that federal funding for abortions is such a small issue compared to many many much larger issues both parties agree on.

What's an issue is relevant to a nation.
No. If everyone wants to debate about gay rights the federal reserve is still 10000x more important an issue.

I seem to wasting my time, and your wasting my time with your anarchist drivel. At this point it seems best we leave this discussion mutually.

If you have to call me an anarchist to write off the conversation you've already lost. We should both go our separate ways. From my perspective, it should be clear enough to any lurkers that you bring nothing to the table. From your perspective, you don't want to seriously examine these issues because your opinions are picked out of convenience and fashion rather than intellectual honesty.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2010 12:20:01 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/29/2010 12:13:04 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 8/29/2010 11:51:41 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
The public pressured the government to do something about 9/11, NOT the methods that they used to address it.
The point is that 9/11 benefited the administration and their buddies. Stay on topic.

Right, but they were pressured by the public too.
You're not getting it.

No, you're not getting it.

But not helping those who offer health services.
If I can sell 100 cans of coke to people, but then the government institutes a policy to buy 200 of my cokes for people, I am benefiting.

Or if the government says they're going to manufacture and sell these, which they are doing, you lose out.


We were discussing crime, not finance

No. We were discussing how the incentives faced by government actors leads them to push policies that benefit the ruling elite.

Which moved into a discussion abotu crime.



O rly? You said it yourself, you can't predict it. Better be safe than sorry. It takes all of an hour, probably less to vote, after all.
You can't predict anything but you can make intelligent guesses about probabilities. If you flip a coin 100 times, it will come up tails at least once. Probably. Care to take the bet? Better safe than sorrry.

There's more to be gained by voting than flipping a coin.
So? Its 1/10,000,000. The point is that no one votes seriously because of these odds.

No-one votes seriously? It's not serious if they don't vote for the Anarchist Party?


Oh because each party has identical, word for word economics policies.
De facto yes.

Oh the lulz.


They're not the same on economic issue. Last time I checked republicans, in general, favoured supply-side economics, and the Dems did't
In name only. And if you think that, the last time you checked was the 80's. The republicans have had virtually no economic philosophy since bush.

Other than to prevent the Democrats economic policy, which shows the clearly don't agree.


Eh, there's an option of eating or dying. There's the option of giving birth, followed by adoption, or getting an abortion
Changing the subject again... the point was that federal funding for abortions is such a small issue compared to many many much larger issues both parties agree on.

What's an issue is relevant to a nation.
No. If everyone wants to debate about gay rights the federal reserve is still 10000x more important an issue.

No, you deem the federal reserve an important issue. The nation as a whole does not seem to care about it too much. I agree it is important, but just not to the people in general.


I seem to wasting my time, and your wasting my time with your anarchist drivel. At this point it seems best we leave this discussion mutually.

If you have to call me an anarchist to write off the conversation you've already lost.

I can't call you what you call yourself unless I intend to end the conversation?

We should both go our separate ways. From my perspective, it should be clear enough to any lurkers that you bring nothing to the table. From your perspective, you don't want to seriously examine these issues because your opinions are picked out of convenience and fashion rather than intellectual honesty.

And back at ya. Don't try and assume any superior higher ground because you know the "facts".
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2010 12:31:56 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
But not helping those who offer health services.
If I can sell 100 cans of coke to people, but then the government institutes a policy to buy 200 of my cokes for people, I am benefiting.

Or if the government says they're going to manufacture and sell these, which they are doing, you lose out.

That's not whats going to happen. Existing corporations will be used to expand output. Medical stock went through the roof just prior to obama's election. If they were going to go out of business, the stock would be worth peanuts now.

Which moved into a discussion abotu crime.
Because you didn't actually address what I said.

No-one votes seriously? It's not serious if they don't vote for the Anarchist Party?
"Seriously" means that they spend time trying to really figure out the issues. No one votes pro/con over the federal reserve. No one understands how open market operations work.

Oh because each party has identical, word for word economics policies.
De facto yes.

Oh the lulz.
Not an argument. You haven't pointed to any substantial differences between the parties. Its all this trivial abortion/gay marriage nonsense.

They're not the same on economic issue. Last time I checked republicans, in general, favoured supply-side economics, and the Dems did't
In name only. And if you think that, the last time you checked was the 80's. The republicans have had virtually no economic philosophy since bush.

Other than to prevent the Democrats economic policy, which shows the clearly don't agree.
Its a lot of noise and racket for very little differences.

No, you deem the federal reserve an important issue. The nation as a whole does not seem to care about it too much. I agree it is important, but just not to the people in general.
These people are unserious.

I seem to wasting my time, and your wasting my time with your anarchist drivel. At this point it seems best we leave this discussion mutually.

If you have to call me an anarchist to write off the conversation you've already lost.

I can't call you what you call yourself unless I intend to end the conversation?
You are using it to write me off. I don't write you off because you're just another teenage lefty. I disagree with you because you haven't been able to defend/attack/comprehend much of this conversation.

And back at ya. Don't try and assume any superior higher ground because you know the "facts".
I prefer to debate using theory actually...

Regardless, this is my last post unless you say something really outrageous or really intelligent.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2010 12:40:54 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/29/2010 12:31:56 PM, Sieben wrote:
But not helping those who offer health services.
If I can sell 100 cans of coke to people, but then the government institutes a policy to buy 200 of my cokes for people, I am benefiting.

Or if the government says they're going to manufacture and sell these, which they are doing, you lose out.

That's not whats going to happen. Existing corporations will be used to expand output. Medical stock went through the roof just prior to obama's election. If they were going to go out of business, the stock would be worth peanuts now.

We were talking abotu a single payer system.



Which moved into a discussion abotu crime.
Because you didn't actually address what I said.

lolwut?


No-one votes seriously? It's not serious if they don't vote for the Anarchist Party?
"Seriously" means that they spend time trying to really figure out the issues. No one votes pro/con over the federal reserve. No one understands how open market operations work.

Obviously, the average American isn't that smart.


Oh because each party has identical, word for word economics policies.
De facto yes.

Oh the lulz.
Not an argument. You haven't pointed to any substantial differences between the parties. Its all this trivial abortion/gay marriage nonsense.

And economics, and foreign policy, hell if Democrats breath Republicans oppose it.


They're not the same on economic issue. Last time I checked republicans, in general, favoured supply-side economics, and the Dems did't
In name only. And if you think that, the last time you checked was the 80's. The republicans have had virtually no economic philosophy since bush.

Other than to prevent the Democrats economic policy, which shows the clearly don't agree.
Its a lot of noise and racket for very little differences.

Even though traditionally republicans cut taxes and devolve economic authority to states and democrats do the opposite.


No, you deem the federal reserve an important issue. The nation as a whole does not seem to care about it too much. I agree it is important, but just not to the people in general.
These people are unserious.

Then a lot, if not most of, America is unserious (Which isn't even a word).


I seem to wasting my time, and your wasting my time with your anarchist drivel. At this point it seems best we leave this discussion mutually.

If you have to call me an anarchist to write off the conversation you've already lost.

I can't call you what you call yourself unless I intend to end the conversation?
You are using it to write me off. I don't write you off because you're just another teenage lefty. I disagree with you because you haven't been able to defend/attack/comprehend much of this conversation.

And back at ya. Don't try and assume any superior higher ground because you know the "facts".
I prefer to debate using theory actually...

Theory is all nice. Anarchism works in theory. Not in reality tho. Very few anarchists argue in real life terms from my experience.


Regardless, this is my last post unless you say something really outrageous or really intelligent.

I'll respond as long as you respond, though I don't know how long you intend to keep this going.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.