By DY_nasty Go To Postbtw
there is so much fuckery going on with that refugee transition in germany right now
What has allegedly happened is inexcusable and should be punished. But what needs to be pointed out is that earlier stats pointed out refugees commit as much crime as Germans. Of course, I'm all for punishing rapists in a meaningful way, something justice systems everywhere have failed to do, and I hope the truth comes out eventually.
We should also all be very concerned about the rise of nationalism and xenophobia in Europe.
By 33MillionDollarMen Go To PostI think Clinton's presidency is inevitable tbh.
Yeah. The rumored Warren vice ticket I think pushes more towards her.
By Gabyskra Go To PostWhat has allegedly happened is inexcusable and should be punished. But what needs to be pointed out is that earlier stats pointed out refugees commit as much crime as Germans. Of course, I'm all for punishing rapists in a meaningful way, something justice systems everywhere have failed to do, and I hope the truth comes out eventually.@bolded that's been ramping up for a decade more or less, no?
We should also all be very concerned about the rise of nationalism and xenophobia in Europe.
but the rest of that mess is people thinking the can bury issues in money or just make people go away
By DY_nasty Go To Post@bolded that's been ramping up for a decade more or less, no?Depends on each country. France, it's been brewing since the 1980s.
Any of you guys libertarians? Libertarians always sound like such childish, low effort thinkers that I'm starting to think it's just the ones I've been exposed to.
There's got to be SOME value to the ideology right? (Besides the adoption of socially liberal positions, obviously).
I'm hoping someone can explain the ideology to me in a way that doesn't immediately make me want to roll my eyes.
There's got to be SOME value to the ideology right? (Besides the adoption of socially liberal positions, obviously).
I'm hoping someone can explain the ideology to me in a way that doesn't immediately make me want to roll my eyes.
IWMTB has some libertarian leanings I think. My favorite online libertarian is Benji from that other forum.
I love how Cruz claims not many conservatives come out of Manhattan when his wife works for Goldman Sachs.
Cruz is every bit as familiar with the large contingent of Manhattan conservatives as Donald Trump is. Once again, he's just throwing red meat to his dumb rube supporters. The skill with which he manipulates them further shows his utter disdain for them.
Cruz is every bit as familiar with the large contingent of Manhattan conservatives as Donald Trump is. Once again, he's just throwing red meat to his dumb rube supporters. The skill with which he manipulates them further shows his utter disdain for them.
By BertramCooper Go To PostI love how Cruz claims not many conservatives come out of Manhattan when his wife works for Goldman Sachs.
Cruz is every bit as familiar with the large contingent of Manhattan conservatives as Donald Trump is. Once again, he's just throwing red meat to his dumb rube supporters. The skill with which he manipulates them further shows his utter disdain for them.
Ted Cruz is a freshmen Machiavelli seminar in synthesized form.
By 3SidedPolygons Go To PostAny of you guys libertarians? Libertarians always sound like such childish, low effort thinkers that I'm starting to think it's just the ones I've been exposed to.
There's got to be SOME value to the ideology right? (Besides the adoption of socially liberal positions, obviously).
I'm hoping someone can explain the ideology to me in a way that doesn't immediately make me want to roll my eyes.
Most libertarians don't trade in reality.
There's a bunch of libertarians in the woods right now, asking for hand outs, that's how it works with them.
Libertarianism seems to assume the state will corrupt, but doesn't assume the individual with capital will. This assumption comes form the libertarian who feels the ideal will solve problems. I've met libertarians who've argued that the ideology would most likely cause tons of issues but that freedom is worth the cost.
The worst aspect of libertarianism is the willingness to allow bigotry in the private sectors because the populace at large will boycott a business and put them out of business if they refused to serve food to a person based on their sex, orientation or skin color. Ultimately, if the business is successful then it's doing things correctly because the populace allowed it to by buying their product.
I'd argue their willingness to privatize things and it being done is crap too. We shouldn't have charter schools, private prisons nor private utilities/city services.
By 33MillionDollarMen Go To PostI'd argue their willingness to privatize things and it being done is crap too. We shouldn't have charter schools, private prisons nor private utilities/city services.That's all part of my argument above. It's the exact same mentality and solution to all: if the product (food, car, computer, classroom, Doctor are all products!) was bad, people won't spend money on it.
By reilo Go To PostThat's all part of my argument above. It's the exact same mentality and solution to all: if the product (food, car, computer, classroom, Doctor are all products!) was bad, people won't spend money on it.Yeah it's dumb, never mind that all a business has to do is be the only company in town and well you get Comcast.
By reilo Go To PostThe worst aspect of libertarianism is the willingness to allow bigotry in the private sectors because the populace at large will boycott a business and put them out of business if they refused to serve food to a person based on their sex, orientation or skin color. Ultimately, if the business is successful then it's doing things correctly because the populace allowed it to by buying their product.
The idea that boycotts will solve things goes much further than just social issues. Getting rid of the FDA largely hinges upon the idea that a drug company will go out of business of they release medication that would kill someone. The ideal lays an insane amount of responsibility at the feet of the individual where the state would normally take care of such things. It seems like an incredibly tiresome waste of time.
By Fenderputty Go To PostThe idea that boycotts will solve things goes much further than just social issues. Getting rid of the FDA largely hinges upon the idea that a drug company will go out of business of they release medication that would kill someone. The ideal lays an insane amount of responsibility at the feet of the individual where the state would normally take care of such things. It seems like an incredibly tiresome waste of time.
And you know, the fact that customers would have to die first.
By HasphatsAnts Go To PostAnd you know, the fact that customers would have to die first.
Right ... lol. But getting rid of the FDA is up there with getting rid of public schools for them haha.
EDIT: Another topic that comes up when discussion libertarianism is the definition of freedom as well. Like private health insurance that nobody can afford. The individual is free to make a choice (if he can) where as in a centrally ran healthcare system, the choice isn't there but other freedoms might be. Such as the ability to go hiking without fear of losing my house due to a broken arm.
The issue with libertarianism, and why classical liberals abandoned it a long time ago, is that it's basically an 18th century version of the world. It hasn't learned a got damn thing in the centuries since Locke and Smith wrote the things they wrote. Also, it's core premise is broken, history has taught us this.
More government equals less freedom. There's more government now than 200 years ago. Therefore Americans have less freedom now then before.
Whoopsie, slaves. Whoopsie gays and lesbians. Whoopsie women. Whoopsie all minorities.
The rest of the world realized that a mixture of public govt and private enterprise is the way to go a long long time ago and consequently every major country on earth allows for both. Libertarians just stopped paying attention to anything after 1776.
More government equals less freedom. There's more government now than 200 years ago. Therefore Americans have less freedom now then before.
Whoopsie, slaves. Whoopsie gays and lesbians. Whoopsie women. Whoopsie all minorities.
The rest of the world realized that a mixture of public govt and private enterprise is the way to go a long long time ago and consequently every major country on earth allows for both. Libertarians just stopped paying attention to anything after 1776.
I think libertarian philosophy can be useful as a counter to think about potential abuses of power from the state, but I'm not a libertarian.
By 3SidedPolygons Go To PostThe issue with libertarianism, and why classical liberals abandoned it a long time ago, is that it's basically an 18th century version of the world. It hasn't learned a got damn thing in the centuries since Locke and Smith wrote the things they wrote. Also, it's core premise is broken, history has taught us this.
More government equals less freedom. There's more government now than 200 years ago. Therefore Americans have less freedom now then before.
Whoopsie, slaves. Whoopsie gays and lesbians. Whoopsie women. Whoopsie all minorities.
The rest of the world realized that a mixture of public govt and private enterprise is the way to go a long long time ago and consequently every major country on earth allows for both. Libertarians just stopped paying attention to anything after 1776.
The basic response to this is that we're further along as a society and wouldn't allow the individual to get away with things they once did, bringing us back to the boycotting issues Reilo and myself discussed.
Rubio failing to get Graham's endorsement despite being the biggest neocon/chickenhawk that has existed is honestly impressive.
By IWMTB19 Go To PostRubio failing to get Graham's endorsement despite being the biggest neocon/chickenhawk that has existed is honestly impressive.Probably has a lot to do with Rubio's utter contempt for the Senate and for his job as a senator.
That doesn't strike me as behavior that would appeal to someone like Graham.
Rubio likely outcomes for the first states:
Iowa: 3rd
NH: 5-way tie for 2nd.
SC: 4th
Future Republican nominee right here.
Iowa: 3rd
NH: 5-way tie for 2nd.
SC: 4th
Future Republican nominee right here.
I like that the current batch of nominees are so odious even their own party doesn't really want to endorse them. That's a level of straight up evil I want in the White House that's for sure.
By Fenderputty Go To PostThe basic response to this is that we're further along as a society and wouldn't allow the individual to get away with things they once did, bringing us back to the boycotting issues Reilo and myself discussed.
So, the basic response is "those people back in the day needed government to tell them to behave, but we don't". Can't that be said about everyone everywhere? Libertarianism is a flawed ideology for the same reason that communism is a flawed ideology. Ignoring the good that an institution does while focusing on and exaggerating the evil that it does isn't living in the real world. Libertarians blame the govt and communists blame the private sector in ways that would, generously, be labeled a massive reach. It leads to people blaming 1970's era anti housing discrimination lending practice regulations for a housing bubble collapse 3+ decades later.
Society has figured this out. Self government, a mixture of private and public enterprise, and an ability to address problems of the time through the legislative process.
By 3SidedPolygons Go To PostSociety has figured this out.
Said every privileged conservative ever. (I mean conservative in the proper meaning of the term, not "republican voter", just "keeps things as they are").
Not a day of peace on the planet since 1938 (and not long before, there was the spanish war between fascists and the Left before).
Increasing inequality and extreme poverty in so many places. Even in the richest, you have more and more people excluded economically.
We haven't figured much out. No one should speak for "society".
I sometimes wish a political discussion like this one was not so anonymous because there are just some people who really should tell a bit more about their own lives/"jobs" before they say capitalism is the end-all be-all of human society. Backgrounds matter. I wouldn't listen to slaveowners talk about racism; & I don't like to read people who defend the way modern business is done today when they might do some fraudulent things. Internet forums and comment sections present that problem. Anonymity is cool most of the time, but when it's about serious matters, not always, some info, not all, is necessary for the discussion to improve.
By IWMTB19 Go To PostThis is the most peaceful era and the era with the least poverty of all timeThat is not at all what your second graph shows (the rate is not lower than ever), and it stops right before the million of dead Iraqis that were killed by the conflict started by the United States (and your favorite candidate voted for it, yay!).
As for the measure of poverty, the economist from Oxford you quote mostly takes his numbers from François Bourguignon. I don't know about the Oxford guy, but Bourguignon's whole argument in recent years is to reject such simplistic approaches, in his writings about inequality, he argues that while extreme poverty might be reduced, poverty over all, on a variety of scales, might grow. I don't know if "la mondialisation de l'inégalité" has been translated in english.
Amartya Sen is a good read on the issue too. For an easy way to get into his conceptual work:
http://harvardmagazine.com/2011/01/who-is-poor
His work has been famous since the 1990s.
For example he says:
"“This dollar-a-day measure doesn’t take into account many variations that influence the conversion of income into good living,” Sen points out. He offers the example of the victims of the recent floods in Pakistan: their reduced income would be noted, but the difficulties they face during resettlement, he says--the deleterious effects on education and on the availability of proper medical care--“would not be captured in an income measure like GDP per capita” (the metric commonly used by economists). “All these would be captured in a properly multidimensional measure.”
Absolutely preposterous to think on such a time-scale. If you look on a century by century basis, you're painfully wrong, and today's rate is not lower than ever. It just is not. It was lower multiple times in history. Also, the scale you have on this last graph is painfully dishonest considering it starts with one of the most horrific events ever, that our family members have experienced (how is that for recent times?).
And good job on not answering the other arguments, stick to soundbites and calling people dumb, that's dignified.
And good job on not answering the other arguments, stick to soundbites and calling people dumb, that's dignified.
Anyway, Hillary says she'll repeal the Hyde Amendment, but I'm guessing this has as much chance of happening as Bernie's Single Payer does (zero unless Trump melts down on stage and calls Hillary a cunt or Bernie by some Jewish slur).
You just compared 3SP to a slaveowner, but you treat people with respect and you are dignified, I comprehend.
Absolutely preposterous to think on such a time-scale. If you look on a century by century basis, you're painfully wrong, and today's rate is not lower than ever. It just is not. It was lower multiple times in history. Also, the scale you have on this last graph is painfully dishonest considering it starts with one of the most horrific events ever, that our family members have experienced (how is that for recent times?).
And good job on not answering the other arguments, stick to soundbites and calling people dumb, that's dignified.
You just compared 3SP to a slaveowner, but you treat people with respect and you are dignified, I comprehend.
By IWMTB19 Go To PostYou just compared Vahagn to a slaveowner, but you treat people with respect and you are dignified, I comprehend.
I have not, I could have said more plainly "I don't ask people who have an interest in a situation to describe how well the system works" or "I don't ask the head of Universal music for records recommendations" or whatever. I'll tell you in PM why I wrote that paragraph (in 2 min).
Any of those charts talk about tax rates, debt and how many people actually own their homes free and clear?
By 33MillionDollarMen Go To PostAny of those charts talk about tax rates, debt and how many people actually own their homes free and clear?
These are charts largely about Africa and Asia from 1960 on.
By 33MillionDollarMen Go To PostAny of those charts talk about tax rates, debt and how many people actually own their homes free and clear?The chart in question literally makes the opposite case of what the source economist meant to convey.
As much as some stuff is getting better much of my generation is pretty much SOL when it comes to actually buying a house. Hell just getting a proper job since so much of the market has shrunk is crap too.
By IWMTB19 Go To PostAnyway, Hillary says she'll repeal the Hyde Amendment, but I'm guessing this has as much chance of happening as Bernie's Single Payer does (zero unless Trump melts down on stage and calls Hillary a cunt or Bernie by some Jewish slur).
You just compared 3SP to a slaveowner, but you treat people with respect and you are dignified, I comprehend.
Lmao really? Oh Gaby never change
By 3SidedPolygons Go To PostLmao really? Oh Gaby never changeYou're no slave owner. Never said you were, but some people's reading skills are terrible. And I'm so tempted to out you for your real life doings.
The HDI takes into account life expectancy and education as the other two main variables. Taking education to be as meaningful as income is, uhh, not something I'd remotely agree with when it comes to absolute poverty, but okay, guess it's one way of measuring things since others have philosophical disagreements about the value of things.
... But the average life expectancy has more than doubled in a hundred years so I don't think the HDI charts would look much different than the absolute poverty charts.
Just for 3SP to see:
... But the average life expectancy has more than doubled in a hundred years so I don't think the HDI charts would look much different than the absolute poverty charts.
You're no slave owner. Never said you were, but some people's reading skills are terrible. And I'm so tempted to out you for your real life doings.
Just for 3SP to see:
I sometimes wish a political discussion like this one was not so anonymous because there are just some people who really should tell a bit more about their own lives/"jobs" before they say capitalism is the end-all be-all of human society. Backgrounds matter. I wouldn't listen to slaveowners talk about racism; & I don't like to read people who defend the way modern business is done today when they might do some fraudulent things. Internet forums and comment sections present that problem. Anonymity is cool most of the time, but when it's about serious matters, not always, some info, not all, is necessary for the discussion to improve.