Politics XXXIV (Politics never changes)

[Guard Dog]

15 hours ago, BruceVC said:

This article summarizes the underlying problem with some young people and possibly many of Sanders supporters 

They dont understand or dont care about the true insidious nature of Communism. They have created there own definition of Communism, if they had any real inclination they really could even rent an historical movie to see the true nature of Communism.....the real problem with this view is  you will start being blocked by normal financial regulations and Constitutional laws if you go too extreme to the left

But I just dont see how Bernie will beat Trump, I feel Trump will manipulate him into some crisis 

 

 

Objectively there is nothing inherently wrong with the theory of communism. It's just ill suited for humans. One of those things that works on paper but not in practical application. We are just not built for collectivism. And a system that allows evil people to do evil things is always something to be avoided. 

And, as Shady pointed out, no one is seriously talking about turning the US communist. The thing to worry about is a slow creep towards collectivist authoritarianism. IMO better to never take the first step. Not even for "free" stuff. Just as an example, the position I always argue on gun control is a literal interpretation of the right to bear arms. It's not that I don't think there are reasonable restrictions that can and should be placed on it. I do agree on that. It's that I understand those restrictions are not going the be the end of it. Each one begets the next, and the next, and the next until it's all gone. A creep towards authoritarian collectivism is just like that. Better to fight over the first step while you still can. 

[Guard Dog]

14 hours ago, ComradeMaster said:

FYI some progressives are calling for some kind of rollback to a resource based economy and getting rid of the Dollar completely.  

See Peter Joseph for more information, he's an economic leftist who's not a Marxist and is advocating for such a system.  You might dig him.

Can you not appreciate how f-----g awesome I am??? Even when I'm being sarcastic I'm on the cutting edge! 

In all seriousness that genie has long since left the bottle. The problem with barter economics things are entirely valued by scarcity. Well, they are in real life too but values or goods and services are a lot more stable this way. 

[Maedhros]

25 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

The thing to worry about is a slow creep towards collectivist authoritarianism. IMO better to never take the first step. Not even for "free" stuff. Just as an example, the position I always argue on gun control is a literal interpretation of the right to bear arms. It's not that I don't think there are reasonable restrictions that can and should be placed on it. I do agree on that. It's that I understand those restrictions are not going the be the end of it. Each one begets the next, and the next, and the next until it's all gone. A creep towards authoritarian collectivism is just like that. Better to fight over the first step while you still can. 

We need reasonable conservatives tempering the fire of those who want to change too much too fast, but this is pretty defeatist stuff. Let's never progress because we might step wrong? The most democratic countres in the world are welfare states with "free stuff": https://www.eiu.com/topic/democracy-index

I don't think the US would have more issues with authoritarianism if it built a more functional welfare state for the people (whereas now "socialism" over there only seems to apply for the rich). It's weird for me that you worry about "collectivist authoritarianism" when it's something very different that plagues the US, with inequality begetting more inequality, and your country moving more and more towards becoming an oligarchy. The fact that Bloomberg could buy himself into the fold so easily says much. But we'll never agree on this!

 

[213374U]

 

By the way, "humans are not built for collectivism" is such a weird view to hold. I guess you taught yourself engineering, starting by inventing calculus, discovering Maxwell's Guard Dog's laws, and then building the school and writing the books, and lastly fashioning the tools? You domesticate and herd the animals which then you shear so you can knit the clothes you wear? You operate on yourself when you have a medical problem (after teaching yourself surgery)? You mine the fossil fuels which you then burn in a boiler of your own manufacture to warm yourself in winter?

Seriously. There is literally no other animal on earth with a more interdependent and complex collective organization than humans. This is the basis that allows for extreme specialization, which in turn is what allowed us to build anything more sophisticated than a mud hut. The paroxysm of individualism that has given us the "I got mine, **** you" mentality is a relatively recent occurrence, which would have been impossible before the appearance of cities. Humans have existed for far longer and evolution doesn't work in that scale.

Edited March 4, 2020 by 213374U
thanks for coming to my TED talk

[Amentep]

2 hours ago, Guard Dog said:

Just as an example, the position I always argue on gun control is a literal interpretation of the right to bear arms. 

Isn't the literal interpretation of the right to bear arms, as defined in the US Constitution, literally tied to militia membership though?  Wasn't this the interpretation that allowed the clean-up of the west (in that sheriff's were able to legally tell cowboys they couldn't enter town with their guns on as they weren't part of a militia) as opposed to the interpretation in District of Columbia vs Heller that expanded rights to the individual unconnected with militia membership?

(I'm neutral on removing gun ownership as the Constitution is supposed to be a living document, but removal of gun ownership needs a Constitutional amendment to happen, anything else would be...well...unconstitutional).

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

I'm more concerned with the existing authoritarianism in the US than I am with the possibility of expanded public health care or 15 buck minimum wage or whatever morphing into Red Terror 2.0. Ironically Bernie would probably be the best on this, but I guess unconstitutional stop and frisk or dementia addled buffoonery is more palatable than prison reform or cutting down on NSA and ICE to certain folks.

[Gfted1]

Funny how opinions vary. I would prefer free healthcare and higher minimum wage and the NSA can stick a microphone in everyone's rectum for all I care.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

That's a very specific fetish.

[Malcador]

On the bright side, Bloomberg pumped some money into the economy.

Edited March 4, 2020 by Malcador

[Guard Dog]

1 hour ago, Amentep said:

Isn't the literal interpretation of the right to bear arms, as defined in the US Constitution, literally tied to militia membership though?  Wasn't this the interpretation that allowed the clean-up of the west (in that sheriff's were able to legally tell cowboys they couldn't enter town with their guns on as they weren't part of a militia) as opposed to the interpretation in District of Columbia vs Heller that expanded rights to the individual unconnected with militia membership?

(I'm neutral on removing gun ownership as the Constitution is supposed to be a living document, but removal of gun ownership needs a Constitutional amendment to happen, anything else would be...well...unconstitutional).

It is not. There are two clauses in the second amendment. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" is the prefatory clause. Prefatory clauses were commonly used in writing at the time to provide a reason or explanation of what follows. Madison was saying WHY the rights of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The operative clause, the second part, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed" is in no way modified by the prefatory. You could re-write it this way: Because a well regulated militia....

The militia in Madison's day was everyone. They didn't wear uniforms. They didn't drill. They were every able bodied American who could hold and fire a weapon. Some folks have argued the militia is the National Guard. That is an absolute self serving and deliberate mischaracterization. 

[Guard Dog]

2 hours ago, Maedhros said:

We need reasonable conservatives tempering the fire of those who want to change too much too fast, but this is pretty defeatist stuff. Let's never progress because we might step wrong? The most democratic countres in the world are welfare states with "free stuff": https://www.eiu.com/topic/democracy-index

I don't think the US would have more issues with authoritarianism if it built a more functional welfare state for the people (whereas now "socialism" over there only seems to apply for the rich). It's weird for me that you worry about "collectivist authoritarianism" when it's something very different that plagues the US, with inequality begetting more inequality, and your country moving more and more towards becoming an oligarchy. The fact that Bloomberg could buy himself into the fold so easily says much. But we'll never agree on this!

 

Wealthy people buy favors from the government because the government will sell favors to wealthy people. The solution I'm hearing is "give the government more power". So it can sell bigger favors? Rather than trusting the government to go after the "wealthy people" I say take away the governments power to do favors for them.

Besides, no problem has ever been solved by employing the same means that created the problem. You cannot fight fire with fire so to speak. The trouble with health care in the US is the costs are out of control. When the end user is not responsible for the cost the provider has no incentive to lower the cost. That is what has come from subsidizing the ability to pay. The ACA built in regional protections so health plans and medical facilities don't have to compete with each other for business. No competition for business mans again, no incentive to reduce cost. Every possible wrong thing has been done to address the one problem that has made it a mess: cost.

Now that isn't saying there isn't something that can't be done. I've argued for this before. Rather than "free" (which isn't) health care for  all how about a catastrophic health insurance plan for everyone. Say they the individual is responsible for all health care cost up to a certain number. Just throwing out a number here so we'll say $10k. If you get a cold and need antibiotic, need stitches, need a knee brace, etc then it's on you. There will no doubt be numerous insurance products to cover the some of the "first $10k" costs. After that THEN there is a public program to help. So, you sprained your ankle? Too bad, take care of that yourself. Oh you have cancer? Come this way and we'll take care of you. That is a more workable idea IMO. 

[Amentep]

21 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

It is not. There are two clauses in the second amendment. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" is the prefatory clause. Prefatory clauses were commonly used in writing at the time to provide a reason or explanation of what follows. Madison was saying WHY the rights of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The operative clause, the second part, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed" is in no way modified by the prefatory. You could re-write it this way: Because a well regulated militia....

The militia in Madison's day was everyone. They didn't wear uniforms. They didn't drill. They were every able bodied American who could hold and fire a weapon. Some folks have argued the militia is the National Guard. That is an absolute self serving and deliberate mischaracterization. 

See, this is the crux of the argument, as I understand it.  People who believe the law was intended to protect the state's rights to have a militia put the weight on the first part, those who believe its for individual rights put it on the second.  Heller, as I understand it, sided with the second part, but that decision isn't without controversy.

Personally I am not a fan of Heller as it has bolstered the "guns everywhere" movement which I am not a fan of.

[Guard Dog]

2 hours ago, 213374U said:

 

By the way, "humans are not built for collectivism" is such a weird view to hold. I guess you taught yourself engineering, starting by inventing calculus, discovering Maxwell's Guard Dog's laws, and then building the school and writing the books, and lastly fashioning the tools? You domesticate and herd the animals which then you shear so you can knit the clothes you wear? You operate on yourself when you have a medical problem (after teaching yourself surgery)? You mine the fossil fuels which you then burn in a boiler of your own manufacture to warm yourself in winter?

Seriously. There is literally no other animal on earth with a more interdependent and complex collective organization than humans. This is the basis that allows for extreme specialization, which in turn is what allowed us to build anything more sophisticated than a mud hut. The paroxysm of individualism that has given us the "I got mine, **** you" mentality is a relatively recent occurrence, which would have been impossible before the appearance of cities. Humans have existed for far longer and evolution doesn't work in that scale.

I think you know what I was referring to there. You are the one taking a ride down the slope with your response. It was obvious to me at least I was referring to the compulsory kind of collectivism where the goods you produce, the ore you mine, the books you write or the labor of your hands are not exclusively yours. Yes, the miner does not own the mine nor the ore he digs up (probably) but he does own his own hands and his labor that he can sell to the one who does on a price they agree on without interference. He has the choice not to work for that mine. He has the choice to sell his labor to another mine if he wants. The kind of collectivism I was referring to takes choices away from people. And you know exactly what I was talking about  

[Guard Dog]

6 minutes ago, Amentep said:

 People who believe the law was intended to protect the state's rights to have a militia put the weight on the first part, those who believe its for individual rights put it on the second.  Heller, as I understand it, sided with the second part, but that decision isn't without controversy.

Personally I am not a fan of Heller as it has bolstered the "guns everywhere" movement which I am not a fan of.

You missed the target just slightly here. It is not a State right, it is an INDIVIDUAL right. It is a right of every citizen that no state, nor the Federal government can infringe. Although they have and not without good reason in some cases. The rights affirmed in the first 10 are all individual rights. But again, they are not without some limitations. What you have to remember about Heller is the District of Columbia's position was "Thou shalt not own any firearm of any kind in thy home".  There is no interpretation of the 2nd Amend that allows total prohibition. 

[Amentep]

I agree that there's no interpretation that would limit all ownership so DC's law was invalid.  I was trying to describe my understanding of the argument pre-Heller, that the interpretation that put extra weight to the first part was an argument that the intent of the amendment was for a state's right to have a militia, which then made the second part subsidiary to the first part.  Heller obviously established the second part as the primary piece, which has then led to interpretations that individual right to own for self protection means individual right to carry anywhere for protection (excluding, you know, government offices).

[Guard Dog]

3 minutes ago, Amentep said:

I agree that there's no interpretation that would limit all ownership so DC's law was invalid.  I was trying to describe my understanding of the argument pre-Heller, that the interpretation that put extra weight to the first part was an argument that the intent of the amendment was for a state's right to have a militia, which then made the second part subsidiary to the first part.  Heller obviously established the second part as the primary piece, which has then led to interpretations that individual right to own for self protection means individual right to carry anywhere for protection (excluding, you know, government offices).

You know I don't think that is correct. That Heller changed the reading I mean. The prefatory and operative clauses have always been what they were. It's just that in the years after courts chose to read them in a way that did not conform to the meaning because it suited them to do so. 

Also the individual right to carry, carry concealed at least, does not exist. That particular privilege, and that is what it is, has been left to the states. For example in my state in order to carry a concealed firearm I have to apply for a permit that they can grant or deny at their pleasure. For any reason or none. In Wyoming, no permit. Come as you are. In California there are permits but no one get's them. In Illinois, New York, & NJ for example concealed carry is illegal. Period. Early in his term Trump was talking about national reciprocity for CC permits. As big an advocate of firearm freedom as I am I would oppose that 100%. It should not be up to the Federal government to tell the states how to manage their business. Nor should the process of one state permit a special privilege in another.  

You know what is ironic? The Heller and McDonald decisions essentially replaced a SCOTUS decision from the 1930's US vs Miller. The gist of it was the plaintiff was arrested for owning a shotgun of a certain length. I think it was 18". Don't remember for sure. Anyway, it was illegal whatever it was. They sued that the law that made the weapon illegal was a violation on the 2nd Amend. The Supreme court said no. They said such a weapon had no use in a civilian militia and was therefore not protected by the 2nd Amend. Now, fast foreword 75 years to Heller. The majority decision in that case left room for restrictions on certain types of weapons. The one firearm everyone talks about restricting is the AR-15. The every thing they have against it is that it is a "military style weapon". Forget for a moment the complete vacuous stupidity of thinking a weapon is more dangerous because it looks scary. If Miller was still the controlling case on Gun Control it would be impossible to restrict the AR-15 BECAUSE it is a military style weapon! I find that incredibly ironic! In the act of "expanding" (or restoring) gun rights the SCOTUS made it possible to ban the scary gun everyone is afraid of. 

Of course it ain't gonna happen because there are an estimated 5-10 million AR-15 in private hands. Many of whom would rather start a civil war than hand them over. Congress does not have the appetite to chew on that one. Personally I thought that whole platform was a mickey mouse piece of s--t and I'd never own one. But that's me. 

[Hurlshort]

1 hour ago, Guard Dog said:

Now that isn't saying there isn't something that can't be done. I've argued for this before. Rather than "free" (which isn't) health care for  all how about a catastrophic health insurance plan for everyone. Say they the individual is responsible for all health care cost up to a certain number. Just throwing out a number here so we'll say $10k. If you get a cold and need antibiotic, need stitches, need a knee brace, etc then it's on you. There will no doubt be numerous insurance products to cover the some of the "first $10k" costs. After that THEN there is a public program to help. So, you sprained your ankle? Too bad, take care of that yourself. Oh you have cancer? Come this way and we'll take care of you. That is a more workable idea IMO. 

Why call it insurance at all, then? I mean, that is kind of the way it already works. You do pay for visits to the doctor under most insurance plans with a co-pay. You typically have a max deductible of 10k to meet, after which the insurance is supposed to cover the rest. The issue is the insurance companies make their money by declining coverage. Maybe you do have cancer, but that test that you want to take to find out might not be covered. No insurance company says "Come this way and we'll take care of you." You pay them for coverage, then you have to work with a doctor that is hopefully in their network to convince them to cover you. It's a dumb system.

I agree ACA was a dumb solution. It just got the government into the insurance business.

edit: As the head of a fairly healthy family of 4, I'm on the phone with my medical insurance company regularly. It is always a miserable time on the phone. I'm sure they bank on that fact. I'm curious what types of experiences you guys have had when dealing with your medical insurance companies.

 

Edited March 4, 2020 by Hurlshot

[Amentep]

32 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

You know I don't think that is correct. That Heller changed the reading I mean. The prefatory and operative clauses have always been what they were. It's just that in the years after courts chose to read them in a way that did not conform to the meaning because it suited them to do so. 

Also the individual right to carry, carry concealed at least, does not exist. That particular privilege, and that is what it is, has been left to the states. For example in my state in order to carry a concealed firearm I have to apply for a permit that they can grant or deny at their pleasure. For any reason or none. In Wyoming, no permit. Come as you are. In California there are permits but no one get's them. In Illinois, New York, & NJ for example concealed carry is illegal. Period. Early in his term Trump was talking about national reciprocity for CC permits. As big an advocate of firearm freedom as I am I would oppose that 100%. It should not be up to the Federal government to tell the states how to manage their business. Nor should the process of one state permit a special privilege in another.  

You know what is ironic? The Heller and McDonald decisions essentially replaced a SCOTUS decision from the 1930's US vs Miller. The gist of it was the plaintiff was arrested for owning a shotgun of a certain length. I think it was 18". Don't remember for sure. Anyway, it was illegal whatever it was. They sued that the law that made the weapon illegal was a violation on the 2nd Amend. The Supreme court said no. They said such a weapon had no use in a civilian militia and was therefore not protected by the 2nd Amend. Now, fast foreword 75 years to Heller. The majority decision in that case left room for restrictions on certain types of weapons. The one firearm everyone talks about restricting is the AR-15. The every thing they have against it is that it is a "military style weapon". Forget for a moment the complete vacuous stupidity of thinking a weapon is more dangerous because it looks scary. If Miller was still the controlling case on Gun Control it would be impossible to restrict the AR-15 BECAUSE it is a military style weapon! I find that incredibly ironic! In the act of "expanding" (or restoring) gun rights the SCOTUS made it possible to ban the scary gun everyone is afraid of. 

Of course it ain't gonna happen because there are an estimated 5-10 million AR-15 in private hands. Many of whom would rather start a civil war than hand them over. Congress does not have the appetite to chew on that one. Personally I thought that whole platform was a mickey mouse piece of s--t and I'd never own one. But that's me. 

I think Miller was the one that led - to my understanding - the thinking the guns had to tie into a theorized militia use, and thus the first part of the amendment was primary over the second.  But I'm not an expert.

The 'guns everywhere' laws I know of aren't concealed carry, but open carry. 

[Volourn]

"Volo since when do you support Sanders ? "

 

You don't have to support someone to know his enemies are scum. I am no supporter of Trump either but he and Sander shave something in common - the Dems oppose them and are scum.

But, in Sander's case, he's pathetic, because even if they screw him aghain he'll come back to them again.

[BruceVC]

12 minutes ago, Volourn said:

"Volo since when do you support Sanders ? "

 

You don't have to support someone to know his enemies are scum. I am no supporter of Trump either but he and Sander shave something in common - the Dems oppose them and are scum.

But, in Sander's case, he's pathetic, because even if they screw him aghain he'll come back to them again.

You make me laugh  but I understand what you mean

But then who do you want to win in the election? It is looking positive for Biden and he basically will represent the Obama legacy and moderate Democratic views which is a good thing. But I am not convinced he has the same effective political message Trump has.....how do you truly undermine the Trump campaign when the USA  economy is so strong and this current strength has to be contributed towards Trump and his successful economic policies. But Trump always  wants to create his own unnecessary reality, he says in public " I saved the USA economy "  now that is demonstrably untrue. Obama was the president that ensured the USA and the world survived the 2008 financial crisis. When Trump became president the USA was the worlds strongest economy and the  USA financial system was stable and regulated but Trump did make it even stronger ...this is also true 

[ShadySands]

25 minutes ago, Volourn said:

But, in Sander's case, he's pathetic, because even if they screw him aghain he'll come back to them again.

Nah, he'll stay independent as I highly doubt he'd run a 3rd time in his 80s

53 minutes ago, Hurlshot said:

I'm curious what types of experiences you guys have had when dealing with your medical insurance companies.

 

I had a physical a couple of weeks ago and the doctor's office staff straight up said to be careful what you say because if you mention any issues then the medical staff has to note it and it could change whether your insurance will still cover the physical as preventative or classify it as something else that you may have to pay out of pocket for.

That's pretty crazy, bad crazy not good crazy.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

2 hours ago, Hurlshot said:

I'm curious what types of experiences you guys have had when dealing with your medical insurance companies.

As someone who is fairly healthy, I haven't personally had any problems with my insurance (aside from stuff that shady mentioned) but my mom had to fight constantly for cancer treatment reccomended by the oncologists and a friend of mine has to jump through insane hoops (at least) monthly just to get his prescriptions. While the cost of an accident is ****ing terrifying for me, I'm also dreading having to do the equivalent of another full time job just to get the care I or my family may need and am already ****ing paid for.

[ComradeYellow]

7 hours ago, Maedhros said:

We need reasonable conservatives tempering the fire of those who want to change too much too fast, but this is pretty defeatist stuff. Let's never progress because we might step wrong? The most democratic countres in the world are welfare states with "free stuff": https://www.eiu.com/topic/democracy-index

I don't think the US would have more issues with authoritarianism if it built a more functional welfare state for the people (whereas now "socialism" over there only seems to apply for the rich). It's weird for me that you worry about "collectivist authoritarianism" when it's something very different that plagues the US, with inequality begetting more inequality, and your country moving more and more towards becoming an oligarchy. The fact that Bloomberg could buy himself into the fold so easily says much. But we'll never agree on this!

 

The only time the U.S. has ever gone "authoritarian" was during times of crisis (Civil War, WW2, ect).  Sometimes you have you crack the boot down and do ugly things to establish a new way of things, which I agree with, but militarization during peace time is about as anti-American as you can get, and it's already quite bad here, and it's especially targetted at the poor and disenfranchised, which makes it even worse.

I don't really advocate for "welfare states" as much as I do "more options", and I think establishing more state enterprises with near guaranteed employment and package benefits (housing, medical, schooling, ect) is probably our best bet.

[Guard Dog]

1 minute ago, ComradeMaster said:

The only time the U.S. has ever gone "authoritarian" was during times of crisis (Civil War, WW2, ect).  Sometimes you have you crack the boot down and do ugly things to establish a new way of things, which I agree with, but militarization during peace time is about as anti-American as you can get, and it's already quite bad here, and it's especially targetted at the poor and disenfranchised, which makes it even worse.

I don't really advocate for "welfare states" as much as I do "more options", and I think establishing more state enterprises with near guaranteed employment and package benefits (housing, medical, schooling, ect) is probably our best bet.

So bring back the TVA huh?

[Amentep]

The Tennessee Valley Authority went somewhere?