So, my point was that strict adherence to the text of the document is absurd, because it would lead to us having pockets full of coins and no Air Force and no American flag, plus lots of other things.
No, it would lead to a legal system that adheres to actual procedures, such as Constitutional Amendment, vs just ignoring the law and doing as they please. You don't find it equally absurd that we're basing modern law on a centuries-old document that we have no desire to ever modify to fit societal changes?
Why don't small-government types actually argue against the programs they dislike, instead of making up nonsense constitutional theories?
We do, and we ask for people to propose an amendment if they truly want government covering all the ludicrous nanny-state things they desire. We believe in the law as designed (that includes checks on the power of the federal government). Simply sidestepping that fact out of a sake of "but the Constitution is antiquated and out of touch!" is insane. It leads to people ignoring the Constitution and making up law as they go (with as broad and all-encompassing a definition of constitutional government allowances they can possibly fathom). That document has a purpose, and it's about damn time we acknowledge that.
You do realize that taxes subsidize a hell of a lot more than that, don't you?
And you realize a very small amount of taxes subsidize all those other things you speak of. The vast majority of government supplied things the common man takes advantage of are fueled by state taxes and/or tolls, not so much on the federal side. And even then, the sum total pales in comparison to the kind of money we spend on the aforementioned social programs.
Nobody, not even a millionaire, has lived independent of the "nanny state" they're bitching about having to support today.
Of course not, it's impossible in this society to live and not pay taxes -- that's the way the country is designed. But it's absolutely asinine to use that as justification against not wanting it that way. And I once again point out there's degrees of "sucking the taxpapyer wealth", and the kind of services that "everyone takes advantage of" are a pittance. Knock Social Security/Medicare down to that level of spending and I'll stop complaining.
because the alternative is much worse
A well thought out state-level safety net with means testing is much worse? I beg to differ. Just because I hate the bloated waste of a federal system we have now doesn't mean I'm anti-safety-net. I just want bang for buck.
As opposed to the "Well, now that I'm rich, I don't want to pay taxes!! No No No NO NO NO NO!!!!" argument?
These same people have the gall to bitch and cry about the "entitled". Give me a fucking break. Who told them they were entitled to a tax-free existence?
If you run some statistics, I'm pretty sure you'd find a very low number of millionaires ever went on Welfare or Medicaid or Unemployment or Food Stamps or Section 8, etc, etc.
And regardless, how do you know they weren't making the same complaints when they weren't millionaires? (like me...)
That's absurd, they absolutely force many federal regulations on people. DOMA specifically states that for any federal purposes a same sex marriage is NOT RECOGNIZED
Ron Paul has no strong stance on Section 3, which has already been found unconstitutional anyways. Ron Paul's support of DOMA originates from the clause that protects states from other states.
So he clearly believes same-sex married couples should not receive any of the benefits of marriage
Ron Paul believes NO ONE should be getting federal kickbacks as a result of marriage. He believes the government shouldn't be in the business of marriage in the first place. DOMA is a response to the shitty system we have now where the government is already two fists deep in everything.
Defense of Marriage Act
Marriage Protection Act
We the People Act
Handwave away, I guess.
All 3 of those acts explicitly protect the rights of states. None of those force any federal regulation on anyone. If Ron Paul were truly anti-same-sex-marriage, he would be proposing or supporting federal legislation that forces all states to not recognize same-sex marriage (namely, the Federal Marriage Amendment, which Paul opposed). It's very clear if you spend even an ounce of time researching it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#Same-sex_marriage
abortion is not nuanced. Either women have the right to do what they want with their own body, or they do not.
Spoken like someone who has already arbitrarily defined the definition and start point of "life", a task even scientists haven't fully accomplished (and have been constantly changing as new lifeforms emerge). Believe it or not, for those of us who are still on the fence as to when/what/where defines "life", there's these little concerns like "human rights" and "murder" to take into account as well. People who don't call it nuanced are likely women who don't want to be even slightly inconvenienced into some semblance of responsibility when it's far easier just to presume something in an extension of their own body rather than an actual human being. By the same logic, you should be able to slay anyone up to about the age of 4 or 5, since there's no way they'll be self-subsistent anywhere prior to that age anyways (being generous). And technically, even a grown child living outside the mother is still part of "her body", since it's her cells walking around in external form anyways.
How dare the government take money out of my pocket to pay the police in your town!
They don't -- police is a local service, paid for by County or State taxes (as it should be).
And public education? If you can't afford to educate your kid then let him be stupid!
Entirely correct.
And can you believe how the government forces food inspectors on farmers?
Industry regulation is a far cry from free healthcare from a "government role"/"constitutional" standpoint. Food stamps would be a better comparison, where people are literally paying the food bills of a bunch of other people.
The last 100 year or 150 years are often used because the industrial revolution started about 150 years ago and cars are about 100 years old. They're used because they represent the time scale on which humans have been using mass amounts of fossil fuels and thus actually releasing mass amount of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
It's incredibly convenient because it directly feeds your desired conclusion. Namely, you start measuring when humans started producing CO2. The fact temperatures went up in the last 100 years could be random climate change for all you know, but since you chose the start point, any increase in temperatures from that point forward is going to feed your argument. Let's try different a different start point, such as 1000 years ago (http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/Bradley.pdf): Temperature change today is now exactly where it was 1000 years ago, prior to any mankind CO2 pumping. But that doesn't support the AGW argument, which is why the 100 year span is used. It's cherry-picking, exactly like those on the other side you decry.
In other words, it represents the entire relevant period and thus isn't cherry-picked by definition.
This is the crux of my problem with your argument. You've pre-determined the "relevant period" when choosing your time span (i.e., you've already framed the argument in a way to support a CO2 correlated conclusion).
It's called cherry-picking. A dishonest tactic employed by climate deniers and other anti-science loons.
Exactly, the correct cherry-picked time span is about 100 years. If anything shorter or longer than that shows contradictory temperature data, ignore it.
Those projections still managed to underestimate the observed rise in temperatures by 30 percent
You consider that to be feeding your half of the debate? He was off by 30%! That's one hell of a standard deviation. By the same logic, if he had "underestimated" by 90 percent, he'd be even more "correct", wouldn't he?
They oppose the health care reform because they're the party of the insurance industry executives, the pharmaceutical moguls, and the specialist physicians
That doesn't add up -- the recent healthcare bill is a _gigantic_ handout to the insurance industry. Why wouldn't they be on board with that then? Instead, I see them as wanting actual reform in _existing_ legislation before the introduction of equally experimental and complex multi-hundred page legislation that could just as likely double costs as it could halve them. The Republicans want to reform Medicare -- the Dems want to turn a blind eye. I'm not 100% on board with the Republican platform, particularly with regards to tax breaks for the super rich. But Republicans DO want healthcare reform. They just want it done in stages, addressing specific problems (rather than gigantic package programs lumped on top of existing troubled programs).
Remember that health care plan proposed by Republicans back in the 90's as an alternative to Hilary Clinton's plan? Now that it has Obama's name on it what happened to all that Republican support?
These are different times. We have less money, more debt, grimmer numbers on Medicare. Not to mention different politicians in office (such as a whole slew of Tea Party politicians).
That's why nobody takes libertarians seriously: the rest of us are more worried about finding a way that we aren't abused period.
And that's why libertarians don't take you seriously. Because you're the abused housewife with learned helplessness, insisting things can get better without realizing that continuing to go back to the same abusive bully asking for them to stop abusing you is NOT the answer.
Social ownership and control of the means of production and cooperative management of the economy is communism.
You're splitting hairs on terminology. Communism is the extreme end of "Social ownership and control of the means of production and cooperative management of the economy". Socialism is the means by which that is achieved (i.e. on a "scale of socialism", "communism" is on the far end whereas "democratic socialism" is somewhere in the middle and "capitalism" is on the other extreme). A similar comparison can be made with libertarianism and anarchy. They are not the same, but extreme libertarianism is anarchy.
Words and language are the source and method of human cognition. Without a proper, full and expressive language we would be no more than apes hurling feces at each other. There is a very purposeful war being waged on the meaning of certain words.
Then do me a favor -- go to the way back machine, and show me a dictionary from ANY era where the definition of socialism was different (more like what you're talking about). If you accomplish this, I'll agree with you. If not, I'm afraid I'll just have to assume your "war on words" is tinfoil hat nonsense.
The false conflation of socialism to communism
It's not entirely false. As noted before, increasing socialism slides us further down the scale towards communism. Whether or not that's the intended goal is a different argument, but it's most certainly a valid concern. Heck, even Marxist theory contends that socialism is a "transitional stage on the road to communism" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism), or that a war on words as well?
But if you are about to suggest Ron Paul, I will disagree with you. After writing the "We the People Act" and voting for the "Defense of Marriage Act" he is not what he claims. His connections to the klan and neo-nazi groups are just icing on the cake.
And there, right there, is the exact problem with US politics. You've ignored over 30 years of consistent constitutional voting to focus on 1 bill he voted for and 1 he said he would have voted for and some neo-nazi talking point bullshit. You honestly think any politician is perfect? That you'll never find a demon in the closet, a ghost in the hall, or say...a Jeremiah Wright? Do you believe the existence of Jeremiah Wright and his ties to Obama should be enough to discredit everything Obama has done or ever will do? It's asinine behavior like this that keeps good people out of office. When it comes down to it, there's no one who better represents our freedom than Ron Paul. Yes, he does has religious leanings, but at least those leanings still let states decide (meaning that if he abuses his power as a congressman, at least it is happening at a FAR less abusive level of government).
Socialism isn't an economic system to be compared or contrasted with capitalism or communism.
It is the aspect of all government systems that seek to minimize harm to society as a whole. Nothing more, nothing less.
You're wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
Socialism is an economic system characterised by social ownership and control of the means of production and cooperative management of the economy http://www.thefreedictionary.com/socialism
1. (Economics) an economic theory or system in which the means of production, distribution, and exchange are owned by the community collectively, usually through the state. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism
1
: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
By the same logic you're following, I could say capitalism isn't an economic system either. It is merely an aspect of all government systems to grow society through a free market. Or some nonsense like that. But when it comes down to it, they're both economic systems because they both involve a distinct manner of handling/overseeing the free market.
And for crying out loud, we don't need "general reliability improvements" to the AJAX crap. STRIP IT THE FUCK OUT! Get rid of it! Go back to the good ol' dropdowns for selecting the moderation level and the number of posts to view. Go back to using to using proven techniques that, get this, actually work and are usable!
What the fuck are you talking about? I don't know what it is, but it isn't socialism.
No, it is socialism, with all the modern flaws of man added into the implementation details. You seem to view socialism with rose colored glasses, where all implementers of law are altruistic humanitarians who can do no wrong and always get it right the first time -- people who have perfect information and see all potential outcomes. When in reality, even a well-meaning socialistic system is subject to the EXACT same flaws you pan capitalism for. After all, you were the one making the claim that somehow "deception, ignorance, and poor planning" are isolated to capitalism, whereas socialism is supposed to be some kind of perfect solution to that problem.
Our entire civilization runs on oil, pretending we'll manage to replace all that with alternatives (on the SCALE that oil is used) is depressingly laughable.
It's simply not true. US oil consumption has been dropping since 2004 (http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?c=us&v=91). And alternatives are popping up left and right. A large swath of buses have already converted to natural gas. Electric and Hybrid cars are making more headway into the general populace every day. Etc, etc -- it's not going to happen overnight, no, but to ignore the fact that we're slowly weening ourselves off of oil is just as ignorant as assuming all available oil is somehow going to disappear overnight.
Capitalism ignores deception, ignorance and poor planning by assuming that all players in the market are aware of all information necessary to make a fair trade in the market.
And you think socialism doesn't ignore these things as well? I guarantee you those with the centralized power are deceiving the masses with promises of "free" things to stay in power while they backdoor deal with their buddies to push special interests (ala Solyndra) in the name of "society benefit". I see this as little different from capitalism's corruption.
Similarly, ignorance plays a factor just as much as well. Do you honestly think the Democrats honestly spend a day in the shoes of the rich man before they plot to take his money and pass anything that doles out cash to the unfortunate? Do you think they spend any time pondering over the effectiveness of a particular bill before trying to pass it? Ifso, they have a terrible track record (see Social Security, Medicare, Obamacare, bank bailouts, Kyoto, etc) . Hell, you think Obama isn't being ignorant when he's pretty much flat out yelling at the courts for daring to stand up against his law? And he's supposed to be a constitutional expert.
Finally, poor planning -- Social Security, Medicare -- need I say more? These programs are _horribly_ planned, so much that they're entirely unsustainable. Medicare is so bad that doctors don't even want to deal with Medicare patients. You honestly think that program was thought out well? They're not even means-tested!
I don't know, but I feel like your going half-blind into your observations. Most people I know that attack libertarianism do so because they despise the idea of a powerful corporate entity abusing their position of power against the populace. Yet they never seem to have an issue with (or otherwise remain ignorant of) a powerful central government entity abusing their position of power against the populace. Between having to defend myself against a corporation or a government, I'll take the former everyday and twice on Sunday.
Slashdot Mirror
Why is that? Because people should base law decisions on whatever benefits them the most, fuck society?
Couple of percentage points? You do know Ron Paul has been polling nationally around 10% for some time now, right?
No, it would lead to a legal system that adheres to actual procedures, such as Constitutional Amendment, vs just ignoring the law and doing as they please. You don't find it equally absurd that we're basing modern law on a centuries-old document that we have no desire to ever modify to fit societal changes?
We do, and we ask for people to propose an amendment if they truly want government covering all the ludicrous nanny-state things they desire. We believe in the law as designed (that includes checks on the power of the federal government). Simply sidestepping that fact out of a sake of "but the Constitution is antiquated and out of touch!" is insane. It leads to people ignoring the Constitution and making up law as they go (with as broad and all-encompassing a definition of constitutional government allowances they can possibly fathom). That document has a purpose, and it's about damn time we acknowledge that.
And you realize a very small amount of taxes subsidize all those other things you speak of. The vast majority of government supplied things the common man takes advantage of are fueled by state taxes and/or tolls, not so much on the federal side. And even then, the sum total pales in comparison to the kind of money we spend on the aforementioned social programs.
Of course not, it's impossible in this society to live and not pay taxes -- that's the way the country is designed. But it's absolutely asinine to use that as justification against not wanting it that way. And I once again point out there's degrees of "sucking the taxpapyer wealth", and the kind of services that "everyone takes advantage of" are a pittance. Knock Social Security/Medicare down to that level of spending and I'll stop complaining.
A well thought out state-level safety net with means testing is much worse? I beg to differ. Just because I hate the bloated waste of a federal system we have now doesn't mean I'm anti-safety-net. I just want bang for buck.
If you run some statistics, I'm pretty sure you'd find a very low number of millionaires ever went on Welfare or Medicaid or Unemployment or Food Stamps or Section 8, etc, etc.
And regardless, how do you know they weren't making the same complaints when they weren't millionaires? (like me...)
Then lookup Peter Schiff, a polar opposite in economic view, who also "pretty much called it" as well (probably prior to Krugman's predictions even)
Ron Paul has no strong stance on Section 3, which has already been found unconstitutional anyways. Ron Paul's support of DOMA originates from the clause that protects states from other states.
Ron Paul believes NO ONE should be getting federal kickbacks as a result of marriage. He believes the government shouldn't be in the business of marriage in the first place. DOMA is a response to the shitty system we have now where the government is already two fists deep in everything.
All 3 of those acts explicitly protect the rights of states. None of those force any federal regulation on anyone. If Ron Paul were truly anti-same-sex-marriage, he would be proposing or supporting federal legislation that forces all states to not recognize same-sex marriage (namely, the Federal Marriage Amendment, which Paul opposed). It's very clear if you spend even an ounce of time researching it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#Same-sex_marriage
Spoken like someone who has already arbitrarily defined the definition and start point of "life", a task even scientists haven't fully accomplished (and have been constantly changing as new lifeforms emerge). Believe it or not, for those of us who are still on the fence as to when/what/where defines "life", there's these little concerns like "human rights" and "murder" to take into account as well. People who don't call it nuanced are likely women who don't want to be even slightly inconvenienced into some semblance of responsibility when it's far easier just to presume something in an extension of their own body rather than an actual human being. By the same logic, you should be able to slay anyone up to about the age of 4 or 5, since there's no way they'll be self-subsistent anywhere prior to that age anyways (being generous). And technically, even a grown child living outside the mother is still part of "her body", since it's her cells walking around in external form anyways.
They don't -- police is a local service, paid for by County or State taxes (as it should be).
Entirely correct.
Industry regulation is a far cry from free healthcare from a "government role"/"constitutional" standpoint. Food stamps would be a better comparison, where people are literally paying the food bills of a bunch of other people.
It's incredibly convenient because it directly feeds your desired conclusion. Namely, you start measuring when humans started producing CO2. The fact temperatures went up in the last 100 years could be random climate change for all you know, but since you chose the start point, any increase in temperatures from that point forward is going to feed your argument. Let's try different a different start point, such as 1000 years ago (http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/Bradley.pdf): Temperature change today is now exactly where it was 1000 years ago, prior to any mankind CO2 pumping. But that doesn't support the AGW argument, which is why the 100 year span is used. It's cherry-picking, exactly like those on the other side you decry.
This is the crux of my problem with your argument. You've pre-determined the "relevant period" when choosing your time span (i.e., you've already framed the argument in a way to support a CO2 correlated conclusion).
Exactly, the correct cherry-picked time span is about 100 years. If anything shorter or longer than that shows contradictory temperature data, ignore it.
You consider that to be feeding your half of the debate? He was off by 30%! That's one hell of a standard deviation. By the same logic, if he had "underestimated" by 90 percent, he'd be even more "correct", wouldn't he?
That doesn't add up -- the recent healthcare bill is a _gigantic_ handout to the insurance industry. Why wouldn't they be on board with that then? Instead, I see them as wanting actual reform in _existing_ legislation before the introduction of equally experimental and complex multi-hundred page legislation that could just as likely double costs as it could halve them. The Republicans want to reform Medicare -- the Dems want to turn a blind eye. I'm not 100% on board with the Republican platform, particularly with regards to tax breaks for the super rich. But Republicans DO want healthcare reform. They just want it done in stages, addressing specific problems (rather than gigantic package programs lumped on top of existing troubled programs).
Please show me the Republican bill looking to overturn EMTALA: http://www.govtrack.us/
Until you do, get your talking point out of my sensible argument.
These are different times. We have less money, more debt, grimmer numbers on Medicare. Not to mention different politicians in office (such as a whole slew of Tea Party politicians).
And that's why libertarians don't take you seriously. Because you're the abused housewife with learned helplessness, insisting things can get better without realizing that continuing to go back to the same abusive bully asking for them to stop abusing you is NOT the answer.
You're splitting hairs on terminology. Communism is the extreme end of "Social ownership and control of the means of production and cooperative management of the economy". Socialism is the means by which that is achieved (i.e. on a "scale of socialism", "communism" is on the far end whereas "democratic socialism" is somewhere in the middle and "capitalism" is on the other extreme). A similar comparison can be made with libertarianism and anarchy. They are not the same, but extreme libertarianism is anarchy.
Then do me a favor -- go to the way back machine, and show me a dictionary from ANY era where the definition of socialism was different (more like what you're talking about). If you accomplish this, I'll agree with you. If not, I'm afraid I'll just have to assume your "war on words" is tinfoil hat nonsense.
It's not entirely false. As noted before, increasing socialism slides us further down the scale towards communism. Whether or not that's the intended goal is a different argument, but it's most certainly a valid concern. Heck, even Marxist theory contends that socialism is a "transitional stage on the road to communism" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism), or that a war on words as well?
And there, right there, is the exact problem with US politics. You've ignored over 30 years of consistent constitutional voting to focus on 1 bill he voted for and 1 he said he would have voted for and some neo-nazi talking point bullshit. You honestly think any politician is perfect? That you'll never find a demon in the closet, a ghost in the hall, or say...a Jeremiah Wright? Do you believe the existence of Jeremiah Wright and his ties to Obama should be enough to discredit everything Obama has done or ever will do? It's asinine behavior like this that keeps good people out of office. When it comes down to it, there's no one who better represents our freedom than Ron Paul. Yes, he does has religious leanings, but at least those leanings still let states decide (meaning that if he abuses his power as a congressman, at least it is happening at a FAR less abusive level of government).
Well. tyranny at the state level is a huge step in a more appropriate direction than tyranny at the federal level. So I applaud him.
You're wrong. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
Socialism is an economic system characterised by social ownership and control of the means of production and cooperative management of the economy
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/socialism
1. (Economics) an economic theory or system in which the means of production, distribution, and exchange are owned by the community collectively, usually through the state.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
By the same logic you're following, I could say capitalism isn't an economic system either. It is merely an aspect of all government systems to grow society through a free market. Or some nonsense like that. But when it comes down to it, they're both economic systems because they both involve a distinct manner of handling/overseeing the free market.
Seconded.
No, it is socialism, with all the modern flaws of man added into the implementation details. You seem to view socialism with rose colored glasses, where all implementers of law are altruistic humanitarians who can do no wrong and always get it right the first time -- people who have perfect information and see all potential outcomes. When in reality, even a well-meaning socialistic system is subject to the EXACT same flaws you pan capitalism for. After all, you were the one making the claim that somehow "deception, ignorance, and poor planning" are isolated to capitalism, whereas socialism is supposed to be some kind of perfect solution to that problem.
It's simply not true. US oil consumption has been dropping since 2004 (http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?c=us&v=91). And alternatives are popping up left and right. A large swath of buses have already converted to natural gas. Electric and Hybrid cars are making more headway into the general populace every day. Etc, etc -- it's not going to happen overnight, no, but to ignore the fact that we're slowly weening ourselves off of oil is just as ignorant as assuming all available oil is somehow going to disappear overnight.
And you think socialism doesn't ignore these things as well? I guarantee you those with the centralized power are deceiving the masses with promises of "free" things to stay in power while they backdoor deal with their buddies to push special interests (ala Solyndra) in the name of "society benefit". I see this as little different from capitalism's corruption.
Similarly, ignorance plays a factor just as much as well. Do you honestly think the Democrats honestly spend a day in the shoes of the rich man before they plot to take his money and pass anything that doles out cash to the unfortunate? Do you think they spend any time pondering over the effectiveness of a particular bill before trying to pass it? Ifso, they have a terrible track record (see Social Security, Medicare, Obamacare, bank bailouts, Kyoto, etc) . Hell, you think Obama isn't being ignorant when he's pretty much flat out yelling at the courts for daring to stand up against his law? And he's supposed to be a constitutional expert.
Finally, poor planning -- Social Security, Medicare -- need I say more? These programs are _horribly_ planned, so much that they're entirely unsustainable. Medicare is so bad that doctors don't even want to deal with Medicare patients. You honestly think that program was thought out well? They're not even means-tested!
I don't know, but I feel like your going half-blind into your observations. Most people I know that attack libertarianism do so because they despise the idea of a powerful corporate entity abusing their position of power against the populace. Yet they never seem to have an issue with (or otherwise remain ignorant of) a powerful central government entity abusing their position of power against the populace. Between having to defend myself against a corporation or a government, I'll take the former everyday and twice on Sunday.