Politics Generations

[Guard Dog]

45 minutes ago, smjjames said:

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.

 

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.

KP was referring to a specific philosophical example in response to me saying Libertarian and Socialist were mutually exclusive rather than any practical example from the real world. The endgame of both is a society without a government where everyone does the right things and shares and shares alike. Like I said, it would be nice but it's not a system for humans.

[smjjames]

21 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

KP was referring to a specific philosophical example in response to me saying Libertarian and Socialist were mutually exclusive rather than any practical example from the real world. The endgame of both is a society without a government where everyone does the right things and shares and shares alike. Like I said, it would be nice but it's not a system for humans.

I see. Yeah, the penultimate communist/libertarian/socialist utopia basically sounds like heaven/elysium/paradise. And yes, it's correct that it wouldn't happen unless you either change human nature so dramatically that you wouldn't recognize them as being normal humans or you have some incorruptible overlord (a 'god' if you will, usually an AI superintelligence in stories of societies that superficially resemble such an utopia) enforcing things so that it works that way.

The share and share alike would be easier in a small (not neccesarily tribal) society, but even then, there's going to be some social stratification.

Edited November 2, 2019 by smjjames

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

1 hour ago, Guard Dog said:

The idea of a stateless society is a non starter with me. 

Then you don't have any business calling anyone else a statist.

1 hour ago, Guard Dog said:

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.

How does this not equally apply to capitalist society? Not only does the state enforce property at the barrel of a gun, but for the vast majority of people housing, food, and labor are not exclusively theirs and can be taken at will. By your logic living imperiled is natural and liberty is a pipe dream.

Edited November 2, 2019 by KaineParker

[smjjames]

22 minutes ago, KaineParker said:

Then you don't have any business calling anyone else a statist.

That depends on whether you're going by stateless society as in over 90% of anatomically modern Homo Sapiens existence or the philosophical concept of a penultimate utopia which is probably indistinguishable from any number of paradise afterlives. GD says you're referring to the latter.

Edited November 2, 2019 by smjjames

[BruceVC]

GD doesnt it annoy you when people like Chomsky  undermine and constantly criticize the USA and " Capitalism "  yet he lives in the USA and benefits immensely from the so called " imperialist " system that he claims is flawed and problematic

 

Through my life and things I have experienced I have certain views on what makes a person someone I admire or respect, people in the public limelight should be consistent when it come to there moral compass and what they say they believe in. Being part of end of Apartheid and then voting in 1994 in South Africa I have learnt a lot about what makes a country succeed and what makes it fail. In the narrative of SA I have heard people say and do things that are incomprehensible or rather incongruous to what makes us better

For example, sometimes there is this unnecessary criticism of English as the primary language in SA. We have a unique Constitutional component where all 11  local languages are seen as equal in sense they all in our Constitution....but the reality is everyone prudently learns English as the main language. Black South Africans from SA generally come from one of the 9 tribes and most black people speak multiple languages and English. Years ago sometimes there was there negative view from  some commentators "  that white people  dont speak African languages because we dont respect black people " ....of course that isn't true and respect isnt about learning someones language

But still every now and again some " Chomsky "  equivalent will pop up in some discussion or debate and they always, always, always just repeat what other people  have been incorrectly saying for years. I remember about 2 years this Kenyan linguistic expert came to SA to be part of 2 discussions at some of universities, I had never heard of this guy but based on some feedback on talk shows he seemed to be held in high regard. Anyway I made a point to listen to his first lecture to see what he was about and what he stood for

He was invited to SA representing an aspect of our narrative which for some people is about  " decolonising " and addressing the perceived and real historical imbalances we sometimes grapple with as a new Democracy, In summary this so called " expert "  on African history basically spent 2 hours undermining the usage of English and kept saying things like " black people must reject English and focus on there own African languages "....he went on about how " English is so bad mkay....." 

But guess what he does for a living, he lives in the USA and works at some California University and guess what....he speaks English all the time. The bizarre thing he didnt see anything wrong with what he was telling students and what he actually practices .....

Anyway he meant well but he reminded me of Chomsky 

 

 

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

6 minutes ago, smjjames said:

That depends on whether you're going by stateless society as in over 90% of anatomically modern Homo Sapiens existence or the philosophical concept of a penultimate utopia which is probably indistinguishable from any number of paradise afterlives. GD says you're referring to the latter.

I can read my friend, I'm claiming that you can't call someone a statist if you believe in the necessity of a state. This is ribbing on GD (and right-libertarianism in general), who has previously used statist as a negative. https://forums.obsidian.net/search/?q=statist

Anyways, "penultimate utopia which is probably indistinguishable from any number of paradise afterlives" is meaningless, the same can be (and usually is) said to dismiss anything that seeks to change the status quo in a meaningful way.

[smjjames]

I probably missed the ribbing sarcasm there then.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Eh, forums miss subtextual context pretty easily.

[Raithe]

Not strictly politics.. but kind of amusing:  Fox News - Students for Trump co-founder pleads guilty to $46,000 fraud scheme

[Guard Dog]

13 hours ago, KaineParker said:

Then you don't have any business calling anyone else a statist.

 

 OK in the literal sense of the term I guess not. But there is no getting around this one: anywhere two humans are gathered there is going to be a "government" and therefore a "state".  And there is going to be compulsion backed by violence. In a SHtF situation it's better to eschew human communities IMO and go it alone. Maybe some day humans will evolve to the point we can suppress are baser instincts and function in libertarian socialism. But not today.

Quote

How does this not equally apply to capitalist society? Not only does the state enforce property at the barrel of a gun, but for the vast majority of people housing, food, and labor are not exclusively theirs and can be taken at will. By your logic living imperiled is natural and liberty is a pipe dream.

 In a "capitalist" system you at least own what you own.  And I say that with the caveat that there is no such thing as a "capitalist" society nor any that is all of one thing or another. And yes you need a government to enforce the laws that protect that ownership. Back to Thomas Paine saying is was but a necessary evil.  Still beats me shooting everyone I see coming down my road because they might be there to take my house! But the labor of your hands than the proceeds of it ARE yours in the country we have now. You can choose whom to sell it to and negotiate it's value. You can sell it to yourself and start your own business. Everything around me this very moment (except the library book on my desk) is mine because I earned it and paid for it. All of it was sold to me freely by who had it before. And the protection of that ownership is one of the few proper functions of a state. The US system actually does a pretty good job arbitrating between the citizens and other organized entities. It's when you find yourself up against some level of the government that the monster comes out. 

[Guard Dog]

13 hours ago, KaineParker said:

 This is ribbing on GD (and right-libertarianism in general), who has previously used statist as a negative. https://forums.obsidian.net/search/?q=statist

 

Wow! I've rung that bell quite a few times haven't I? 

 

In my defense though some of there were intentional hyperbole. I do that sometimes. 

[Guard Dog]

13 hours ago, BruceVC said:

GD doesnt it annoy you when people like Chomsky  undermine and constantly criticize the USA and " Capitalism "  yet he lives in the USA and benefits immensely from the so called " imperialist " system that he claims is flawed and problematic

Nope. It does not annoy me even a little bit. I understand the rest of your point. No one likes to be on the receiving end of unfair criticism bad characterization. Especially when it is meant to drive a wedge between groups of people. But there is something to be gained and taken from all criticism and all opinions no matter how unfair, inflammatory, or just plain wrong. There is a push here in the US to silence some free speech with "hate speech" laws. That is a terrible idea that will lead to far more than stopping hate speech. Most people are not prejudiced and recoil from racism when they hear it. Race baiters in the US like Duke and Farrakhan turn far more people away from them than they ever attract. But even if that were not so it is still better to suffer their venom that it would be to silence them. The notion that free expression can be selectively limited is a lie people tell themselves. 

[Raithe]

[alanschu]

16 hours ago, KaineParker said:

How does this not equally apply to capitalist society? Not only does the state enforce property at the barrel of a gun, but for the vast majority of people housing, food, and labor are not exclusively theirs and can be taken at will. By your logic living imperiled is natural and liberty is a pipe dream.

Watching my MIL in Texas stay in a job with an abusive boss because she depended on the health care that the job provided in order to get necessary medication was one of those eye opening moment for me.

She was eventually fired which was disruptive in ways I'm pretty unfamiliar with as a Canadian, because in effect it also forced my FIL to quit his job so that he could find one that provided adequate medical insurance. For a state that very loudly proclaims their support for liberty/freedom, it seemed like quite the juxtaposition for me. My wife is much more left than her conservative parents (as am I), but even as a son of a business owner in Canada there's a significant "freeing" aspect of having socialized health care. It's one less mechanism compelling people to remain in jobs that may actually be harmful to someone, and one less cost and headache for a business owner (particularly a smaller one) to not have to worry about providing that level of care for your employees.

[smjjames]

3 hours ago, Guard Dog said:

 OK in the literal sense of the term I guess not. But there is no getting around this one: anywhere two humans are gathered there is going to be a "government" and therefore a "state".  And there is going to be compulsion backed by violence. In a SHtF situation it's better to eschew human communities IMO and go it alone.

I was gonna complain that isn't the definition in anthropology, but whatever, semantics.

Quote

Maybe some day humans will evolve to the point we can suppress are baser instincts and function in libertarian socialism. But not today.

Vulcans? heh. Though to be fair, how their society worked economically was never explored, canonically at least. I'm sure someone can find a better sci-fi example since Vulcans were the first thing that came to mind with 'suppress baser instincts'.

20 minutes ago, alanschu said:

Watching my MIL in Texas stay in a job with an abusive boss because she depended on the health care that the job provided in order to get necessary medication was one of those eye opening moment for me.

She was eventually fired which was disruptive in ways I'm pretty unfamiliar with as a Canadian, because in effect it also forced my FIL to quit his job so that he could find one that provided adequate medical insurance. For a state that very loudly proclaims their support for liberty/freedom, it seemed like quite the juxtaposition for me. My wife is much more left than her conservative parents (as am I), but even as a son of a business owner in Canada there's a significant "freeing" aspect of having socialized health care. It's one less mechanism compelling people to remain in jobs that may actually be harmful to someone, and one less cost and headache for a business owner (particularly a smaller one) to not have to worry about providing that level of care for your employees.

You know, I wonder why Democrats haven't tried using this argument. sounds like it'd play well with Republicans.

Edited November 3, 2019 by smjjames
This is weird..... Fixing this screwed up quote within quote.quote.

[Guard Dog]

27 minutes ago, alanschu said:

Watching my MIL in Texas stay in a job with an abusive boss because she depended on the health care that the job provided in order to get necessary medication was one of those eye opening moment for me.

She was eventually fired which was disruptive in ways I'm pretty unfamiliar with as a Canadian, because in effect it also forced my FIL to quit his job so that he could find one that provided adequate medical insurance. For a state that very loudly proclaims their support for liberty/freedom, it seemed like quite the juxtaposition for me. My wife is much more left than her conservative parents (as am I), but even as a son of a business owner in Canada there's a significant "freeing" aspect of having socialized health care. It's one less mechanism compelling people to remain in jobs that may actually be harmful to someone, and one less cost and headache for a business owner (particularly a smaller one) to not have to worry about providing that level of care for your employees.

Hey Alan, welcome back! Nice to see you here again.

[Hurlshort]

1 hour ago, smjjames said:

You know, I wonder why Democrats haven't tried using this argument. sounds like it'd play well with Republicans.

I have no idea how anyone who isn't in the 1 percent doesn't see our health care system as completely broken. We are all one health crisis away from destitution, regardless of whether we have insurance. 

https://arizona.pure.elsevier.com/en/publications/death-or-debt-national-estimates-of-financial-toxicity-in-persons

https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/managing-care/track-care-costs/financial-toxicity-hp-pdq

https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbestechcouncil/2019/03/25/cancer-treatment-costs-imperil-patients/#2c5e98512b6f

This all gets worse every year while we bicker about socialism. 

[alanschu]

2 hours ago, smjjames said:

You know, I wonder why Democrats haven't tried using this argument. sounds like it'd play well with Republicans.

15-20 years ago I was super conservative and even advocated that Canada consider privatizing health care. Although most of my research at the time didn't do a good job of supporting me (to the point that I reconsidered my position). Basically I realized that a lot of my applications of free market economics still relied on a lot of the idealized application covered in course work. Assumptions such as perfect markets, no transition time/costs, perfectly rational actors, and perfect competition.

As a result, even at some of my most ardent big-C Conservative days, I still felt that health care and primary K-12 education were good things to support similar to roads/infrastructure, emergency services, and so forth. Essentially I felt an educated and healthy populace was a good investment and would be good for the economy.

 

1 hour ago, Guard Dog said:

Hey Alan, welcome back! Nice to see you here again.

Evidently Obsidian just needs to release games more frequently to keep me coming back <.<

Edited November 3, 2019 by alanschu

[Hurlshort]

Welcome back Alan. We collect social reputation points around here now, so things are much more civil.

[Raithe]

[Guard Dog]

Best post ever ^

[Guard Dog]

New gun control case coming to the SCOTUS next year: https://reason.com/2019/08/07/gun-control-cases-to-watch-at-the-supreme-court/?fbclid=IwAR06T_aJ7-whvBO_62dlqSwPLN6Oj1fEjAf9YbO9OI0kzsrZxDOI8OSw2mA

 

The gist of this is the City of New York is refusing to allow the legal transportation of legally owned firearms in the city outside city limits. They CAN be transported within the city under certain circumstances: they must be unloaded and locked in a container and not kept wither their ammunition. Additionally they can only be transported to a authorized shooting range.

The requirement to carry unloaded in a locked container is not overly burdensome IMO. Quite a few places have those requirements. However, forbidding the transportation of legal weapons anywhere outside the city IS heave handed. What is it to them what a law abiding citizen does with their private property?

[smjjames]

30 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

New gun control case coming to the SCOTUS next year: https://reason.com/2019/08/07/gun-control-cases-to-watch-at-the-supreme-court/?fbclid=IwAR06T_aJ7-whvBO_62dlqSwPLN6Oj1fEjAf9YbO9OI0kzsrZxDOI8OSw2mA

 

The gist of this is the City of New York is refusing to allow the legal transportation of legally owned firearms in the city outside city limits. They CAN be transported within the city under certain circumstances: they must be unloaded and locked in a container and not kept wither their ammunition. Additionally they can only be transported to a authorized shooting range.

The requirement to carry unloaded in a locked container is not overly burdensome IMO. Quite a few places have those requirements. However, forbidding the transportation of legal weapons anywhere outside the city IS heave handed. What is it to them what a law abiding citizen does with their private property?

What about transporting legal firearms into the city? While the internal part is likely fine (you and I would likely disagree on this GD), but not allowing a mechanism to take guns outside city limits doesn't make sense to me, can't quite put a definition on the not make sense, it's just common sense or something. I mean, even within the parameters it sets, it makes no consideration for taking guns out of the city.

It just sounds like a badly written law that doesn't account for things it should.

[ComradeYellow]

I guess it's the Western way to try to balance hard realism with idealism, yet they can't seem to figure it out. xD

[injurai]

1 hour ago, Guard Dog said:

Best post ever ^

Stanhope is a man of legends