If Racism is Bad…

[Fisherking]

@Grayblades, I would say that you principally misunderstand politics and have a strong bigotry when it come to American Politics in particular.

You assume that what is, is and cannot be changed. Reform is futile. Yet you yourself see the need to reform.

Now, there are many points we agree upon. :shock: But I do not see government as benefactor, only as a necessary evil.

The American political parties voice different views in campaigns but are indistinguishable when in power. Both rule in support of the crony capitalism that they themselves created.

The bank bailouts were to help their own interests and ultimately of their own creation through regulation and privilege.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Ln8...ga-PJm3_WuHXA2

[Greyblades]

@Grayblades, I would say that you principally misunderstand politics and have a strong bigotry when it come to American Politics in particular.

Bigotry? Bigotry requiers undeserving target and I am pretty sure the Unites states political system is very deserving of an ire I share with most of it's inhabitants.

You assume that what is, is and cannot be changed. Reform is futile. Yet you yourself see the need to reform.

No, I see a need for reform but I find your proposed changes to be inheritly counterproductive. Your system is blatantly corrupt, negligent and dysfuctional yes. But I'm under the impression that you think that everything would be better handled on the state level, or through private companies. To that I can only point at the amount of crap the private sector has pulled already, and how the states governments are equally corrupt, negligent and dysfuctional. Particularly of those red states who are currently reliant on federal funds to keep from driving themselves into the ground. Your government needs reform, you need to stop the gerrymandering, reduce the overwhelming influence of vested interests, undo the two party system etc. But I dont see how decentralization could be the reform needed when the alternatives to a centeralized state are worse, it most certainly doesnt help that most of the people calling for it are the same people who have caused the need for reform in the first place.

[Fisherking]

Bigotry? Bigotry implies something undeserving upon the recipient, whereas all my hate is on the intentional actions of the republicans.

No, I see a need for reform but I find your proposed changes to be inheritly counterproductive. Your system is blatantly corrupt, negligent and dysfuctional yes. But I'm under the impression that you think that everything would be better handled on the state level, or through private companies. To that I can only point at the amount of crap the private sector has pulled already, and how the states governments are equally corrupt, negligent and dysfuctional. Particularly of those red states who are currently reliant on federal funds to keep from driving themselves into the ground. Your government needs reform, you need to stop the gerrymandering, reduce the overwhelming influence of vested interests, undo the two party system etc. But I dont see how decentralization could be the reform needed when the alternatives to a centeralized state are worse, it most certainly doesnt help that most of the people calling for it are the same people who have caused the need for reform in the first place.

There you go assuming again. I see no role for business to be involved in government what so ever. It is the quickest way to corrupt them both. I have never said that and that is of your own invention, like much else you have written.

I am under no illusions as to the corruptibility of government at any level, only that less centralized governments have less powers and more local governments have less geographical reach. The more distant the government the more tolerant people are of its excesses

You misunderstand that fundamentally there is no difference in the ruling parties in the US. What they say is not what they do. They only differ in which corporate interests they promote.

The system is quite efferent in what it does. The only seeming dysfunctionality is in what it says vs. what it does. Laws are written by lobbyists or corporations and given to congress, given misleading bill names and garner public support for the titles, not what the bill or laws actually contain.

They mislead the people and lie at every turn yet the public will not see beyond the rhetoric.

Like the man said, “it is easy to fool people but it is damn near impossible to convince them they have been fooled”.

And if you see no need for governmental reform, well, guess where that leaves you. I see it was a waste of time to provide you with that link.

[Greyblades]

There you go assuming again. I see no role for business to be involved in government what so ever. It is the quickest way to corrupt them both. I have never said that and that is of your own invention, like much else you have written.

Ah, but you see, you havent said anything for me to assume or know otherwise; You've spouted "authoritarianism, decentralization, liberty freedom and a hard boiled egg." But the issue you have come out and said "this is going too far": is vaccinations. It would be understandable if you were ultra libertarian but we've mentioned the patriot act and you've not so much as said "yeah that's bad, but lets keep it on topic guys".
You've come off selective. You focus upon something that is, quite frankly, irrational as much worse has been imposed yet ignored. It's textbook politicking with a right wing twist,what else am I supposed to assume?

I am under no illusions as to the corruptibility of government at any level, only that less centralized governments have less powers and more local governments have less geographical reach. The more distant the government the more tolerant people are of its excesses

I cannot agree with that, as I feel if it was true we wouldnt be hearing a peep about southern or scottish seperatism.

You misunderstand that fundamentally there is no difference in the ruling parties in the US. What they say is not what they do. They only differ in which corporate interests they promote.

Arguable, I find the main difference is their PR and that what the Republicans put out disturbs me, almost as much as the fact that it still gets them elected. I dont find the democrats' advertising very compelling but compared to the republicans they is saint like and with the uprising of the teaparty and the words of thier leaders, I find myself wondering if they themselves are starting to believe thier own propaganda. I find the possibility much more frightening than any slave to corporate interest.

And if you see no need for governmental reform, well, guess where that leaves you. I see it was a waste of time to provide you with that link.

Changing the 2 party system is not a government reform? Also you need to find better philosophors than Rand's groupies.

[HoreTore]

lol, Murray Rothbard linky.

If that's not batshit crazy, nothing is.

[Fisherking]

lol, Murray Rothbard linky.

If that's not batshit crazy, nothing is.

No, I don’t think so. Heard him talking about you.


edit: that is not fair. Most of his stuff is, but his view on the state and on war he does have a glimmer of light.

[HoreTore]

No, I don’t think so. Heard him talking about you.

When you believe Ludwig von Mises doesn't go far enough, it's a clear sign someone has lost their mind.

Also, Austrian school is complete BS by the simple fact that they completely disregard the scientific method, even going so far as to brag about their pseudoscientific ways. It's no wonder their conclusions are all unfounded ideological hogwash with no basis in actual reality.

[Fisherking]

When you believe Ludwig von Mises doesn't go far enough, it's a clear sign someone has lost their mind.

Also, Austrian school is complete BS by the simple fact that they completely disregard the scientific method, even going so far as to brag about their pseudoscientific ways. It's no wonder their conclusions are all unfounded ideological hogwash with no basis in actual reality.

I haven’t read any of the Austrians on economics but had you said that about the scientific method a week ago I would have let it go and assumed you were right. I have only dabbled a bit into the topic.

Coincidentally however, on 4th a rather prestigious Political Economist, visiting from the states, happened to come over to watch the US team lose. Not a man that anyone of sense would associate with the right, nor libertarians for that matter. There was no discussion of Austrians but he brought up the scientific method ( as practiced in economics) himself and he dismissed it as rubbish. So apparently the Austrians can get away with calling the scientific method witchcraft because it is not just them who think this. It may actually be a minor point in their favor. At least among economists.

Ah, but you see, you havent said anything for me to assume or know otherwise

Well, apparently you have missed it and I don’t feel the need to go through it all. Most of this is theoretical anyway, as I don’t see the US collapsing in the next couple of weeks.

But here is an idea. So far all you have done is disagree without offering any thing of substance.

Why don’t you demonstrate a little moral courage by telling us what you stand for and what you think is a better form of government?

[Greyblades]

So far all you have done is disagree without offering any thing of substance.

No substance is still a net gain over the use of that Murray Rothbard video.

what you think is a better form of government?

If all it took to make a better government, than what 3000 years of human expermentation has produced, was one man listening to the works of a few wannabe philosophors attempting to justifying thier selfish elitism(oh, sorry, libertarians) we'd have found it from the start. What america has right now is in need of an overhaul and while I dont have the answer, you dont need to be a chef to know when the food sucks and I dont need to have my own plan to tell when your idea wont work and the attempts to make it work will most likely make things worse.

Let's start easy: Imagining you had a decentralized government like you wish and taking into consideration that a constitution and it's amendments (which overall are held in higher regard in thier country than god) wasnt enough to restrain a government from using power it wasnt supposed to have, how would you keep any government, centralized or not, from repeating what the last decentralized state with a heavenly constitution did: I.E. the United States.

[a completely inoffensive name]

No substance is still a net gain over the use of that Murray Rothbard video.


If all it took to make a better government, than what 3000 years of human expermentation has produced, was one man listening to the works of a few wannabe philosophors attempting to justifying thier selfish elitism(oh, sorry, libertarians) we'd have found it from the start. What america has right now is in need of an overhaul and while I dont have the answer, you dont need to be a chef to know when the food sucks and I dont need to have my own plan to tell when your idea wont work and the attempts to make it work will most likely make things worse.

Let's start easy: Imagining you had a decentralized government like you wish and taking into consideration that a constitution and it's amendments (which overall are held in higher regard in thier country than god) wasnt enough to restrain a government from using power it wasnt supposed to have, how would you keep any government, centralized or not, from repeating what the last decentralized state with a heavenly constitution did: I.E. the United States.

Don't be angry Greyblades. You don't live in America so you don't understand that the goal of many in American politics is to infuriate until exhaustion. It's the easiest way to induce apathy. Take a break and think of the Queen and then remind yourself this too will end.

[HoreTore]

I haven’t read any of the Austrians on economics

lol, you just linked a Murray Rothbard essay...

So apparently the Austrians can get away with calling the scientific method witchcraft because it is not just them who think this. It may actually be a minor point in their favor. At least among economists.

lol, no.

Mathematical modelling and empirical data are absolutely fundamental to all sane economists. The Austrian school explicitly refuses to provide empirical data to back up their claims. As such, it is little more than wishful thinking. They want things to be true, therefore they must be true.

[Fisherking]

lol, you just linked a Murray Rothbard essay...

Yes! On the State.

lol, no.

Mathematical modelling and empirical data are absolutely fundamental to all sane economists. The Austrian school explicitly refuses to provide empirical data to back up their claims. As such, it is little more than wishful thinking. They want things to be true, therefore they must be true.

Your Arrogance is amazing!

The man has several PhDs from THE top universities and has worked and taught in the field for over 35 years.

I assume this is your internet persona speaking, or would you really presume to lecture the Dalai Lama on spiritual matters, or your surgeon on his procedural techniques?


He is not an Austrian but still thinks the method unreliable. I’ll let him know you disapprove. We’ll see if it changes his mind.