Politics Thread - Ka-tet of 19

[Lexx]

WHAT. Everyone knows woymen don't do such kind of things.

[smjjames]

I did get what zoraptor was saying and not that it was literally masturbatory.

[Zoraptor]

Given all the hypocrisy to go around, seems like it would be better to just include every single country on Earth in it, yes, including NK despite them being pretty much the worst offender.

 

DPRK wouldn't get elected to it for the same reason they don't get onto the UNSC, they don't have enough friends to and aren't in a bloc, let alone an influential one. Congo or Saudi get onto the UNHRC much the same way as Ivory Coast or Kazakhstan or Ethiopia or Equatorial Guinea gets onto the UNSC- they have enough political friends, leverage or influence to get there. That's not ideal, but then nothing is whether in the UN or anywhere else, the question is whether there is anything that is better, practically, and whether the current situation is better than nothing (it is).

 

Frankly, given Trump's popularity with erstwhile friendly countries I suspect that this withdrawal was plain inevitable whatever happened, as the US faces a re-election next year that they might well have embarrassingly lost. This way at least the isolationists/ manifest destiny types get to think that Trump is being 'strong'.

[Guard Dog]

Libertarianism - the cult of Ayn Rand - is the real problem of this country.

 

 

 

Jesus Christ this again? This is not the first time you championed the intellectually vacant notion that just because someone at some time may have written something you agree with at you are buying into every little thing they ever said. I don't know why this is so difficult to grasp but it IS possible to think Atlas Shrugged MIGHT have raised a few interesting points without thinking Ayn Rand was f-----g Moses carrying the stone tablets. And why do some people seem unable to get past the idea that a dead russian ex-pat who wrote a few long winded  books over sixty years ago is somehow the messiah of Libertarian thought today? If that is really your criteria you'd make a better argument if you said it was Murray Rothbard or Thomas Sowell. Hell at least he is still alive. 

 

As for the "real problem" of this country being libertarianisim I can see why you'd think that. Imagine a country where we left each other alone. Where you would not have to go to prison for rolling up a dried plant in paper and lighting it on fire. Or could marry whoever you liked without the government saying no. Imagine a country where you did not have to fall to your knees and humbly beg the government permission to build a fence on the property you supposedly own. Or have to worry that government will take your home because someone with more money wants it. Imagine a country where books don't get banned from libraries, the government does not tell TV networks what they can and can not show. Or tells citizens what they can and can't buy or who from. Imagine a country where $0.45 of every dollar you work for isn't taken from you and wasted on things the government is not even supposed to have the power to waste it on. I can see why you would not want to live in a hell like that.  

[Amentep]

Would there be libraries to ban books from under libertarianism?  I know some libertarians support local government more than state or federal government in the US, but wouldn't funding libraries from even a local government be in conflict with personal autonomy?  I suppose you could be arguing that libraries would be privatized and supported by benefactors who choose to share their resources?

[Guard Dog]

We are not talking about ungoverned anarchy here. There is always going to be Federal, State, and local governments with jobs to do. The might be doing less, with less and the lines between them might be hardened but there will always be governments, social services, etc. 

 

But, let's put that aside for a moment. In our 242 years I can count on one hand all the times one political party controlled everything to the point there could be no resistance. And even then they did not get "everything" they wanted. There is no scenario in the near or even intermediate future where the LP gets a veto/filibuster proof majority in Washington of any state capital. So even is the aim was a complete objectivist deconstruction of society (it is NOT I will repeat) electing a handful of LP politicians to congress, state houses, or executive offices will not make that a reality.

 

What we DO have is a government that I think most can agree is getting out of control. Take Trump and his tariff BS. The power of taxation is enumerated to Congress. Congress granted the Executive the power to use tariffs in wartime and national emergencies back during WWI. Are we at war? They can take it back at any time but they won't because most of them hope to be President someday and want that power for themselves. Barack Obama used Executive Orders to modify laws passed by Congress and even adjudicated on by the Court. Can he do that? He cannot, but Congress did not stop it for much the same reason as before.

 

Both the Democrats AND the Republicans are growing a bigger, meaner, more intrusive and abusive government on almost every level. If you oppose that then voting for either makes not sense. The hope of putting LP member into power is to slow that down and AT BEST maybe reverse course a little bit. The Libertarians are not a third party. They are a second one. The D & R are the fist one.

[Amentep]

I'd love to see both the Libertarian and Green parties actually viable in local, state and federal elections; short of abolishing the party system (what I'd prefer to happen) having more viable parties can break the stranglehold the democrats and republicans have on government.

 

But my point was, in a theoretical sense as I understand it, the right-libertarianism in the US tends to only support the military, police, courts (and sometimes firefighters) as necessary government (to protect personal liberty and personal property) and occasionally, the executive and legislative branches depending on where they're at in the libertarian spectrum.  So while it is true a libertarian approach wouldn't be pro-banning books from a library, my understanding is that they wouldn't actually be pro-library either.

[Gromnir]

gd's libertarian utopia is no less naive than any other party's platform.  vote libertarian does not change people.  same prejudices.  same stoopidity. same intolerance.

 

marry whomever you wish?  what 'bout sister-marriage or child brides? well of course such stuff wouldn't be ok, but how?  how to prevent unhealthy or protect innocent in a libertarian utopia.  ubless you appoint a wise king as a benevolent dictator, your other option is likely gonna be democracy, and democracy is behind all those evils gd rails 'gainst.  and sure, you wouldn't need to get as many permits to put up a fence(don't be so ridiculous to believe all permits would go away... and who decides which permits is necessary? democracy?) but then your neighbor who plays ska at 2:00am at window shattering volumes on a property he has converted into a dog fighting arena/rendering plant would also be okie dokie. 

 

Gromnir is most often identifying libertarian who is fiscal more likely to align with republicans.  even so, the libertarian utopia is fantasy.  we do believe there is a handful o' freedoms which need be protected from government/democracy.  freedom o' speech. freedom o' religion. freedom o' press. freedom 'gainst unreasonable police interference.  etc. the US Constitution has most o' the important stuff covered, but there is always folks and organizations trying, often with the best o' intentions, to limit the vitality o' those protections.  our brand o' libertarianism is to be protecting the fundamental rights and allow the democratic process to decide the rest.

 

smoke in restaurants?  drink while under influence o' alcohol? marry 10 year-old sister wife?

 

beyond the economic and international affairs naivete o' most libertarians running for elected office, there is always the problem o' people being people. can't change people by voting libertarian... which isn't a bad thing.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Gfted1]

Pope Francis Slams Trump’s Family Separation Policy As ‘Immoral’.

 

So I don't understand all the crocodile tears wrt these separations. These people are committing a crime, right? If Jack and Diane shoot a man while robbing his castle, and they have little Sally strapped into the back seat of the get away car, should Sally go to jail with her parents? Should the parents be let go because Sally is in the car? Whats supposed to happen to these minors, iyo? 

[Malcador]

Crocodile tears would be the ones coming from the administration if any, seems the critics are genuinely upset.   Also, is some debate if they are separating asylum seekers from their children, which if so, is confusing but never doubt people's ineptitude.

[injurai]

I'd love to see both the Libertarian and Green parties actually viable in local, state and federal elections; short of abolishing the party system (what I'd prefer to happen) having more viable parties can break the stranglehold the democrats and republicans have on government.

 

But my point was, in a theoretical sense as I understand it, the right-libertarianism in the US tends to only support the military, police, courts (and sometimes firefighters) as necessary government (to protect personal liberty and personal property) and occasionally, the executive and legislative branches depending on where they're at in the libertarian spectrum.  So while it is true a libertarian approach wouldn't be pro-banning books from a library, my understanding is that they wouldn't actually be pro-library either.

 

They are against libraries because people keep confusing them with librarians.

[Gfted1]

Crocodile tears would be the ones coming from the administration if any, seems the critics are genuinely upset.

 

I don't know how they could be. The same thing happens in our criminal justice system even for citizens. Both parents get jailed for a crime, with nobody else to take the kids(s)? Into the foster system with them.

[smjjames]

We are not talking about ungoverned anarchy here. There is always going to be Federal, State, and local governments with jobs to do. The might be doing less, with less and the lines between them might be hardened but there will always be governments, social services, etc. 

 

But, let's put that aside for a moment. In our 242 years I can count on one hand all the times one political party controlled everything to the point there could be no resistance. And even then they did not get "everything" they wanted. There is no scenario in the near or even intermediate future where the LP gets a veto/filibuster proof majority in Washington of any state capital. So even is the aim was a complete objectivist deconstruction of society (it is NOT I will repeat) electing a handful of LP politicians to congress, state houses, or executive offices will not make that a reality.

 

What we DO have is a government that I think most can agree is getting out of control. Take Trump and his tariff BS. The power of taxation is enumerated to Congress. Congress granted the Executive the power to use tariffs in wartime and national emergencies back during WWI. Are we at war? They can take it back at any time but they won't because most of them hope to be President someday and want that power for themselves. Barack Obama used Executive Orders to modify laws passed by Congress and even adjudicated on by the Court. Can he do that? He cannot, but Congress did not stop it for much the same reason as before.

 

Both the Democrats AND the Republicans are growing a bigger, meaner, more intrusive and abusive government on almost every level. If you oppose that then voting for either makes not sense. The hope of putting LP member into power is to slow that down and AT BEST maybe reverse course a little bit. The Libertarians are not a third party. They are a second one. The D & R are the fist one.

 

Your brand of libertarianism isn't of the anarchist type, I get that, however, there are libertarians who do subscribe to the 'reduce government to nonexistence or near nonexistence', like Rand Paul. Unless I'm misunderstanding Rand Paul and his positions are more like yours.

 

As for the counting one hand all the times one political party controlled everything to the point there could be no resistance, the only time I know of is when the US briefly became a one party state in the early 19th century. However, it got that way because the other opposing party had collapsed and even then, that one party wasn't stable, it quickly split into two camps.

[Malcador]

 

Crocodile tears would be the ones coming from the administration if any, seems the critics are genuinely upset.

 

I don't know how they could be. The same thing happens in our criminal justice system even for citizens. Both parents get jailed for a crime, with nobody else to take the kids(s)? Into the foster system with them.

 

 

The asylum seekers is the issue, that's not a crime as far as I know. Apparently they are caught up in the zero tolerance mentality as well. 

[Hurlshort]

Pope Francis Slams Trump’s Family Separation Policy As ‘Immoral’.

 

So I don't understand all the crocodile tears wrt these separations. These people are committing a crime, right? If Jack and Diane shoot a man while robbing his castle, and they have little Sally strapped into the back seat of the get away car, should Sally go to jail with her parents? Should the parents be let go because Sally is in the car? Whats supposed to happen to these minors, iyo?

Not sure if crossing the border is really the same as murder, but okay dokay.

[Gfted1]

The asylum seekers is the issue, that's not a crime as far as I know. Apparently they are caught up in the zero tolerance mentality as well.

 

The wiki definition of "asylum seeker" seems pretty loosey goosey. Wouldn't 100% of illegal immigrants claim that status?

[Gfted1]

Not sure if crossing the border is really the same as murder, but okay dokay.

Are you cherry picking which laws to enforce the same way you cherry pick which discrimination is important?

[Malcador]

 

The asylum seekers is the issue, that's not a crime as far as I know. Apparently they are caught up in the zero tolerance mentality as well.

 

The wiki definition of "asylum seeker" seems pretty loosey goosey. Wouldn't 100% of illegal immigrants claim that status?

 

 

Yep it is, but it's something they have to process through rather than start swinging the hammer.  I guess it is also a case of not doing things just because you can, certainly is no harm to keep the families together and handle them as a unit in either asylym seekers or plain illegals. Or at least to me.

 

https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/politics/Family-Separation-Border-Homeland-Security-486035941.html  - could be BS, could be true and it'd be a cheap easy win for Trump

[Amentep]

Pope Francis Slams Trump’s Family Separation Policy As ‘Immoral’.

 

So I don't understand all the crocodile tears wrt these separations. These people are committing a crime, right? If Jack and Diane shoot a man while robbing his castle, and they have little Sally strapped into the back seat of the get away car, should Sally go to jail with her parents? Should the parents be let go because Sally is in the car? Whats supposed to happen to these minors, iyo? 

 

I'm not sure your analogy works; if the "crime" is entering the US illegally, then Sally committed the "crime" with her parents.  You could then argue lack of choice, etc. but I just think the analogy breaks apart since in your example Sally holds no part of the criminal act (I guess you could say the parents put a gun in Sally's hands and told her to point it at the butler and squeeze the trigger if he moved to make her a part of the crime in a similar way, but what a rabbit hole...)

 

I suspect most people who are upset think that what is supposed to happen is whatever was happening before Trump's new whatever is happening started happening. 

[Gfted1]

Im not following. In both examples the minor child is just a hapless pawn going along with their parents.

Good thing people aren't losing the capacity for rational thought:

 

"Do you hear babies crying". 

 

"Rip Barron from her arms". 
 

[Amentep]

In the example where she's sitting in the seat, she's not actually a participant in the crime, she happens to be in a location with the criminals.  She might as well be a hitchhiker for all it matters

 

In the example where she's crossing the border or holding a gun in her hand, despite the fact that she's being told to do that by parental authority figures, she's still an active participant in the crime even though due to her age she probably doesn't have a formed adult judgement to understand what she's doing (if young enough).

 

Or something. 

[Hurlshort]

 

Not sure if crossing the border is really the same as murder, but okay dokay.

Are you cherry picking which laws to enforce the same way you cherry pick which discrimination is important?

 

 

Neither of us in an expert on immigration law, I'm guessing. It's clearly a much more complicated situation than you are making it out to be though.

 

In terms of the public outcry, this is hardly a surprise. If Juan Valjean breaks the law to make a better life for his family, and he is being doggedly pursued by the dutiful Javert Sessions, it is clear who the sympathetic figure is going to be.

[Malcador]

They need to make that a movie.

[Gfted1]

So how does everyone feel about children that are put into foster case due to their (citizen) parents being incarcerated?

[Hurlshort]

So how does everyone feel about children that are put into foster case due to their (citizen) parents being incarcerated?

 

It sucks.