Politics Generations

[Skarpen]

7 minutes ago, ComradeMaster said:

Noam Chomsky has fully confessed (with a little added interest, I might add) to the American genocide of the Native American population so I have no idea where you're getting your facts from.

From history. Look up his view on communistic regimes and genocides closer to his lifetime than colonization of north America.

[ShadySands]

I'm absolutely for getting money out of politics but I don't think that lets the people who abuse the system, as it currently is, off the hook. Especially when they screw millions of people over doing it.

Edited November 2, 2019 by ShadySands
took 2 and a half hours to post and now I'm not right under GD

[Guard Dog]

37 minutes ago, ShadySands said:

I'm absolutely for getting money out of politics but I don't think that let's the people who abuse the system, as it currently is, off the hook. Especially when they screw millions of people over doing it.

Well, they can't screw you without help. Either from the government or from you. Charles Koch might want your house but he can never take it from you unless you give it to him or sell it to him willingly. But the state of Colorado can take it away from you for pennies on the dollar and sell it to him for whatever he would pay. All he has to do is buy a little influence and favors the government is only too happy to sell. So, who is really screwing you in this example?

 

[ComradeYellow]

1 hour ago, Skarpen said:

From history. Look up his view on communistic regimes and genocides closer to his lifetime than colonization of north America.

There is literally nothing in his works which specify "communistic genocide", as he primarily focuses on U.S. and NATO aggression.  But hey I got an idea!  Move to Israel and genocide Palestinians and Muslims and blame it on Communists, you'd fit right in! 

[Guard Dog]

13 hours ago, ComradeMaster said:

 You can be libertarian minded AND a socialist at the same time.

 

Sorry but in all deference to you, Mr. Chomsky, Mr. Fourier,  and my friend Oscar Wilde I'm going to have to disagree. You can be socialist and not think the government has to restrict personal liberty in all things. It has never happened to my knowledge but it's possible. But that breaks down when it comes to private property and economics.

 

I have an apple tree and want to sell my apples. Tom offers to buy them for $2 a bushel. Harry offers $1. I decide to sell them to Tom. Sorry Harry but the going rate was $2. However, assuming you are talking about some kind of market socialism rather than non-market, I am "forced" to sell them at a price I don't get to set. Therein lies the problem. Once I cannot do as I please with my private property it's now compulsion and there is nothing more anti-libertarian. If I refuse here come the men with the guns. Socialism is great as long as everyone agrees to cooperate. But the moment someone wants to exercise a little of that liberty you're supposed to have the whole system breaks down. Then it's men, guns and blindfolds. Socialism can't exist without forced compliance. Liberty cannot exist with forced compliance.

I have a lot of respect for Chomsky actually. But his advocacy for unions for example is at odds with his advocacy for free association since in many cases union membership is compulsory where workforces have organized. It is ok to take some of one philosophy and some of another and mix them to create a third. It's not quite as ok to argue for ideals that really can't co-exist as a practical matter. Well, it's ok to do that too, just don't be surprised when someone points out the flaw. 

Edited November 2, 2019 by Guard Dog

[Guard Dog]

Beta "Hell Yes We're Going To Take Your Guns" O'Rourke has dropped out.

To quote Edward I of England "A man does good business when he rids himself of a turd"

[ShadySands]

I would say the worst is the guy bribing someone high up in the government to screw me. Obviously though the government isn't blameless in that scenario but they wouldn't be working me over if the guy didn't pay them to. Because of that I'd put them just below Koch who engineered the whole thing.

Basically they're all wrong but the guy pulling the strings is worse in my eyes

Even more so in the cases in my links. They cozied up to governors and lied to their own supporters by claiming they're against taxes and for small government. Then they turn around and support taxes for new highways because they're in oil and asphalt. I'd say that makes them pretty awful.

 

[Hurlshort]

1 hour ago, Guard Dog said:

Well, they can't screw you without help. Either from the government or from you. Charles Koch might want your house but he can never take it from you unless you give it to him or sell it to him willingly. But the state of Colorado can take it away from you for pennies on the dollar and sell it to him for whatever he would pay. All he has to do is buy a little influence and favors the government is only too happy to sell. So, who is really screwing you in this example?

 

Charles Koch is. I mean it seems to be his idea to take my house. He is setting it all in motion and using his money to make it happen. His motivation is probably to turn a profit, regardless of how it affects me and my property, because that is how a business functions. Now the government is supposed to serve both of us equally. That is a naive expectation, of course, but we have recourse as voters, limited as it may be. I have less recourse against Koch. I can boycott him, I suppose. I don't know, I think we should just agree the billionaires and the politicians are just two different colors of the same turd. 

[Guard Dog]

I guess your brains are just wired differently than mine. I place the blame squarely on the one that actually takes my home. Does it matter to me why they took it or for whom? I'm no less screwed either way. You can tell Koch to go to hell. Shove his money where the snow don't fall. But the state, you are out of luck. Because here come those pesky men with guns. The government is the choke point. Without them he can want in one hand and s--t in the other. Take away their power and you take away his. 

But hey, if it were up to me the takings clause of the 5th Amendment would be altered from this:

"nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

to this:

"nor shall private property be taken."

Edited November 2, 2019 by Guard Dog
And another thing

[Hurlshort]

In theory I like the idea that private property cannot be taken, but in practice I do get a lot of benefit from public works projects. Seems to me there is a lot of wiggle room in there to do right by the owner and still benefit the public. However it will always be an egregious misuse of power when the government acts in the interests of a private business over the citizens, and both parties should be held accountable.

[smjjames]

6 hours ago, Guard Dog said:

Just heard on the new the Trumpster wants to have a live "fireside chat" (channeling FDR's weekly radio address if you don't get the reference) and read the transcript of the Ukraine call. If you were one of his advisors, trying to keep him from hanging himself every day, would you ever reach the point where you say "You know what Don? Go right ahead. Do what you want"

My first thought on seeing that (elsewhere, not your post) was 'If he even deviates a word from it, he's going to get accused of lying about it, not to mention falling into the same kind of trap that Adam Schiff fell into.

[Skarpen]

6 hours ago, Guard Dog said:

Well, they can't screw you without help. Either from the government or from you. Charles Koch might want your house but he can never take it from you unless you give it to him or sell it to him willingly. 

 

Ok. But why he cannot take it from you? What is physically stopping him from hiring a small army and ride to your home guns blazing and take it from your dead cold hands?

6 hours ago, ComradeMaster said:

There is literally nothing in his works which specify "communistic genocide", as he primarily focuses on U.S. and NATO aggression.  But hey I got an idea!  Move to Israel and genocide Palestinians and Muslims and blame it on Communists, you'd fit right in! 

Read up his "works" on Khmer Rouge and get back when you have some more knowledge on your "hero".

Edited November 2, 2019 by Skarpen
spelling

[Bartimaeus]

6 hours ago, ShadySands said:

I would say the worst is the guy bribing someone high up in the government to screw me.

The person in government was elected or appointed by someone who ran on serving their citizens, and is entrusted with powers, duties, and responsibilities to do so. When they accept a bribe, through our legal bribery system or not, they tend to do things that run contrary to their elected or appointed purpose/promises and against the wishes of their voters. There would be no need to bribe them to take a stance they already had, right? They're the ones that ran on doing right by their citizens - the briber did no such thing, and is merely taking advantage of the bribee's moral capriciousness and, if the bribe is legal, our legal system allowing such to happen. It's not that the briber did nothing wrong per se (morality still exists even if our corporate world insists to this Earth's fiery end that it doesn't), but they're not the ones that're turning around and selling me and my fellow citizens out for a dime after promising to do the exact opposite and getting voted in for it.

Edited November 2, 2019 by Bartimaeus

[Guard Dog]

4 hours ago, Skarpen said:

Ok. But why he cannot take it from you? What is physically stopping him from hiring a small army and ride to your home guns blazing and take it from your dead cold hands?

 

I am not suggesting anarchy here. We NEED a government. Laws are still a thing and need to be enforced. It's a question of how MUCH government we need. What can it do beyond enforcing the laws? Thomas Paine said it best "Government in it's best state is but a necessary evil. In it's worst state an intolerable one".  In the US we are getting much closer to the latter than the former. But it CAN be reversed. It won't be but it could be, 

[Skarpen]

15 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

I am not suggesting anarchy here. We NEED a government. Laws are still a thing and need to be enforced. It's a question of how MUCH government we need. What can it do beyond enforcing the laws? Thomas Paine said it best "Government in it's best state is but a necessary evil. In it's worst state an intolerable one".  In the US we are getting much closer to the latter than the former. But it CAN be reversed. It won't be but it could be, 

I know that. My point was slightly different. You claim that if the government would not have power to take your land from you that would end corruption. But he could just as easily bribe the government to turn the blind eye when he would take your land by force. The government no matter what power they have will be corruptable. So it's not the case of limiting it's power = limiting corruption.

[Guard Dog]

9 hours ago, Hurlshot said:

In theory I like the idea that private property cannot be taken, but in practice I do get a lot of benefit from public works projects. Seems to me there is a lot of wiggle room in there to do right by the owner and still benefit the public. However it will always be an egregious misuse of power when the government acts in the interests of a private business over the citizens, and both parties should be held accountable.

Public works can still happen. Just do it without the men with guns. Buy property at fair market value rather than condemn is and take it with minimal compensation. I have no desire to sell my house but I do have a price I'd agree to if it were offered. Offer twice the fair market value and I'll be out of here tonight without so much as a chicken feather to show I was ever here. If they don't sell then build your school/road/park elsewhere. What happened to Suzette Kelo, the Bishop Estate in Hawaii, the department store in Washington in 1954 should not happen in a "free" country. Not that we have one of those. 

Hell it's happening right here not forty miles from me. The Shelby County Regional "Megasite" is filing court claims to seize easements  of private land to build a pipeline from the industrial center to the river so it's wastewater can be dumped in the Mississippi. Now there is real base villainy for you. Not only are they seizing land for which they do not want to pay a cent they are making the homeowners complicit in dumping runoff and contaminants in the river. That is what government does here.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

12 hours ago, Guard Dog said:

Sorry but in all deference to you, Mr. Chomsky, Mr. Fourier,  and my friend Oscar Wilde I'm going to have to disagree.

Libertarian started being used by Dejacque, a 19th century french socialist, because Proudhon was too misogynistic and anti-semitic. It wasn't until radical liberals needed something new to call themselves that it meant anything but anarchism.

12 hours ago, Guard Dog said:

You can be socialist and not think the government has to restrict personal liberty in all things. It has never happened to my knowledge but it's possible.

Then your knowledge is limited, because it has been a thing for over a century and was the lines (one of) the first socialist organizations split over. Read God and the State.

12 hours ago, Guard Dog said:

But that breaks down when it comes to private property and economics.

Property and (neo)liberal economics require a state to enforce property relationships with force, if anything it's right-libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism that break down when it comes to property.

[Hurlshort]

1 hour ago, Guard Dog said:

Hell it's happening right here not forty miles from me. The Shelby County Regional "Megasite" is filing court claims to seize easements  of private land to build a pipeline from the industrial center to the river so it's wastewater can be dumped in the Mississippi. Now there is real base villainy for you. Not only are they seizing land for which they do not want to pay a cent they are making the homeowners complicit in dumping runoff and contaminants in the river. That is what government does here.

I knew you were a bleeding heart environmentalist, GD! 

[smjjames]

@Guard Dog This Bishop Estate? That example doesn't appear to have had anything to do with eminent domain.

[Elerond]

 

[smjjames]

I saw mentions about that too. From everything that I've heard about the wall stuff, sounds like they tried to make it as difficult as possible to climb but neglected to think like a smuggler maybe. Turns out the smugglers are pretty good beta testers for walls.

There is of course the old tried and true 'invest in a 30 foot wall and I'll invest in a 31 foot ladder' method that got mentioned. The reality though is that it's always going to be an arms race between the two sides.

[Guard Dog]

7 hours ago, Hurlshot said:

I knew you were a bleeding heart environmentalist, GD! 

Ugh, don't tell anyone

[Guard Dog]

4 hours ago, smjjames said:

@Guard Dog This Bishop Estate? That example doesn't appear to have had anything to do with eminent domain.

Hawaii Housing Authority vs Mdkiff

[Guard Dog]

7 hours ago, KaineParker said:

Libertarian started being used by Dejacque, a 19th century french socialist, because Proudhon was too misogynistic and anti-semitic. It wasn't until radical liberals needed something new to call themselves that it meant anything but anarchism.

Then your knowledge is limited, because it has been a thing for over a century and was the lines (one of) the first socialist organizations split over. Read God and the State.

Property and (neo)liberal economics require a state to enforce property relationships with force, if anything it's right-libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism that break down when it comes to property.

The idea of a stateless society is a non starter with me.  Unless of course you are living alone in the wilderness with a level of self sufficiency. Humans are going to organize themselves into hierarchies. Or be organized by force by stronger individuals. It's a nice dream but unsuitable for our species. The first organizing principles of any government are envy, greed, and hubris. Either someone wants what you have, wants a bigger share of what everyone has, or thinks they know better than you how you should be living. It's going to happen so it's far better if it's codified with rules that will hopefully limit the damage it will do. 

When I said socialist societies by design limit liberty I was speaking of practical application. Not a philosophical pipe dream. If the home you live in ,the food you eat, the labor of your own hands are not exclusively yours then you have them only at the sufferance of someone who can take them all away from you. That is not living in liberty,. That is living imperiled.

 

[smjjames]

37 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

Hawaii Housing Authority vs Mdkiff

I see. Sounds like that one was an attempt to solve multiple problems that they had with one stone or something like that, which was exacerbated by federal lands taking up half the island's buildable land*. It could also arguably be taking away native land. Whatever their intent was, it blew right up in their face, so, that one may have dubious precedence.

*I took a look at federal land in Hawaii and most of it is military which people would have an easier time releasing to public building than wildlife reserves. Also, it does appear like there'd be a heck of a lot of room, but the maps don't show topography and it's buildable area that's being referred to. Also, I'm aware that map is from 2013, so, some land may have been released since.

 

13 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

The idea of a stateless society is a non starter with me.  Unless of course you are living alone in the wilderness with a level of self sufficiency. Humans are going to organize themselves into hierarchies. Or be organized by force by stronger individuals. It's a nice dream but unsuitable for our species. The first organizing principles of any government are envy, greed, and hubris. Either someone wants what you have, wants a bigger share of what everyone has, or thinks they know better than you how you should be living. It's going to happen so it's far better if it's codified with rules that will hopefully limit the damage it will do. 

When I said socialist societies by design limit liberty I was speaking of practical application. Not a philosophical pipe dream. If the home you live in ,the food you eat, the labor of your own hands are not exclusively yours then you have them only at the sufferance of someone who can take them all away from you. That is not living in liberty,. That is living imperiled.

Didn't we live in stateless societies for most of pre-written history? It IS an actual term used in anthropology to refer to groupings without a formal government structure beyond the level of tribal chieftians. It's possible you're thinking of statelessness which means not having citizenship to a state. Or maybe you're thinking of the term in political terms rather than anthropological.

Edited November 2, 2019 by smjjames