but i'll take a bite at that retarded bait anyways: is the constitution not the fucking bible. it is a living breathing contract for a living breathing society. it grows and changes as the society grows and changes. the constitution is not the fucking quran that requires a holy war if someone suggests the horrible sacriledge of a new better way TO ENSURE OUR FREEDOMS FROM IRRESPONSIBLE ASSHOLES
fact: you are not exercising a right when you do not to have health insurance. you are offloading your responsibility for your health onto me
let me repeat that for the hard of understanding:
you. are. not. exercising. a. right. when. you. do. not. to. have. health. insurance. you. are. offloading. your. responsibility. to. take. care. of. your. health. onto. me.
there is no logical route around this simple obvious as fucking day truth
that you don't understand this fucking obvious truth means nothing more than us, the society you expect to pay for your healthcosts, has to compel you, kicking and screaming TO LIVE UP TO YOUR MOTHERFUCKING RESPONSIBILITIES. we are not imposing on your freedoms in the least, moron, we are making sure you are not imposing on OUR freedoms. get it?
is it acceptable that i walk by you dying in the street because you have no health insurance and no way to pay for care? of course not. therefore, you better be fucking RESPONSIBLE and pay for unforeseen costs with insurance. unless you believe you are an immortal and will never be injured beyond your means
it is only this delusion of immortality that could convince you that holding your ground in this retarded argument any further makes the slightest bit of fucking sense
it is your responsibility to take care of your health. it is not my responsibility to take care of your health. correct?
any person alive today might be in the hospital by the end of the day. correct? are you immortal? do you deny this simple truth?
therefore, it is your responsibility to have insurance to make sure that you are paying for your health maintenance, which might include sudden unforeseen unaffordable costs. i shouldn't have to pay for it, correct?
therefore, if you do not have health insurance, you are not exercising a right of yours, you are abrogating a responsibility of yours. really. its quite fucking simple
that you think anything else is logically incoherent. follow the bouncing ball. it is airtight, simple logic. that you deny it is probably not a sign stupidity on your part, but judging by the quantity of effort you put into debating me, some sort of horrible propagandized state you live in. denial, denial, denial
look at every other industrialized democracy on this planet. having universal health care is a fucking brain dead obvious duty of a free society. SO MY FREEDOMS ARE NOT IMPOSED UPON BY YOUR UNFORESEEN COSTS. duh
answer: no, and you are punished if you get in accident and you do not have insurance
why? because you are imposing on everyone else's freedoms, by forcing them to pay for your accidents. you understand that, right?
if you understand that, why do you not understand the simple obvious logic about health care insurance? not getting health insurance is not you exercising a freedom of yours. not getting health insurance is you not fulfilling a responsibility of yours. can you honestly tell me with a straight face otherwise?
are you immune to sudden unforeseen health costs that you can't afford? unless you are a billionaire, the answer is no
therefore, as a matter of objective fact, you do need health insurance. furtermore, it must be mandated, because there are so many morons out there like you who can't tell the difference between a responsibility and a freedom
according to any philosphical understanding of what freedom means conceptually, freedom has never meant behavior which imposes on other people. your problem is you don't understand in which direction the imposition is happening in the healthcare debate. the issue is not that the government is imposing on you to pay for health insurance, the issue is you are imposing on society thinking you can walk around without health insurance
"You can't have freedom without responsibility."
this is exactly right. it is your responsibility to take care of your health. if you don't do that, you are not exercising a freedom of yours, you are acting irresponsibly. you are willfully or ignorantly avoiding the fact that if you are passed out on the ground, we can't simply walk by you, we have to take you to the hospital, or we aren't being ethical. therefore you MUST get health insurance because this is your RESPONSIBILITY. not having insurance is not a right or a freedom you are exercising, it is an act of IRRESPONSIBILITY you are committing
if there were no laws against pseudoephedrine, you'd have more meth makers, and all of the society wide suffering that goes with that. the fact you can't buy pseudoephedrine is a different kind of suffering, but a smaller scale of suffering than not having the law around
life is not about black and white choices, its about shades of grey.you examine the issue in a vacuum, without the context of the negatives of your other choices, and this makes you have these hysterical opinions
and you NEED health insurance. even 21 yo marathoners have heart attacks and broken legs. if you believe you don't need health insurance, you have some sort of god complex, and then you definitely need mental health coverage
as for not affording it, you can't afford NOT to have it
as for making you pay for it: why force people to pay taxes? why not make it voluntary? because people are fucking irresponsible, and they won't pay for taxes, health insurance, or a whole bunch of other things they need but are usually too stupid to understand why they need it. so you NEED to force them because if given a choice, people won't do the right thing. which is pay your fucking taxes and pay your fucking health insurance. you HAVE to, because it is your RESPONSIBILITY as a member of SOCIETY from which you derive BENEFITS
if you buy health insurance right now, it continues to climb in price like no tomorrow, covers less and less every day, all to support a bloated inefficient system of companies competing to deny you coverage. under a single payer system, even if the government was 10x more inefficient and bureaucratic, it would still be cheaper, and you would be paying for a healthcare entity whose mandate is to take care of YOU, not some fucking stockholder
universal health care coverage is so fucking obviously superior to what we have now, i can only conclude morons and assholes who defy it do so only out of some alien atavistic hatred for simple, obvious progress
are you like those townhall retards who stand up and shout "big government, keep your socialist hands off my medicare!" (snicker)
you're going to PAY for healthcare one way or another genius. the current way you pay for it sucks FAR FAR WORSE than a government run system could ever be. try to understand the fucking obvious someday
and you have a heart attack, the hospital cannot turn you away, for simple ethical reasons. so when the bill comes due, and you can't pay, i have to pay for that out of my pocket. this is an imposition on MY freedom
if you have a car accident and have no insurance, they suspend your license. is this a horrible imposition on your freedom? no, its a horrible imposition on everyone else's freedom to drive around without insurance, and you deserve to be punished
if you understand that simple common sense, maybe you understand why you HAVE to buy insurance, and if you do not have insurance and you cost the taxpayers $20K to cover your hospital bills, you SHOULD be punished, for imposing on everyone else
there's no such thing as freedom from responsibility, asshole
its been below zero outside for weeks, snow is piled high. working on this house with sunken foot high wells for the basement windows, requiring you to clean out the snow and leaves that often gather in the wells, so it doesn't break the windows or leak water inside. so i'm yanking out this snow and compacted ice and leaves accumulated, and underneath, half frozen in the ice, is a dead toad. sad
then the fucker kicks me
absolutely blew my mind. well below zero in february. half frozen in ice. i put him back in the window well, give him a roof of leaves
this was two years ago. same toad still lives in the same window well to this day, dining all summer with gusto on the worms and bugs that fall in the well. never left. probably frozen under the snow right now. some sort of toad oasis
this is the reason why two parties come to dominate inevitably: right versus left is a basic duality springing from basic human psychology and the way we all think about issues
there are of course a million dimensions of ideology. there's gun toting right wingers... who grow pot on their rural farms. there's gay people... who are mostly right wing in thinking (the log cabin republicans). there's very religious people... who are utterly socialist in their thinking about taking care of the community, by the community. etc., etc., etc, ad nauseum
for every issue, there is a dimension of opinions. and there's a million issues. so for every person, there is a unique ideology. you could mix up make up the most seemingly contradictory impossible ideology of various opinions on various issues, and you'll probably find at least someone out there who believes that with a serious straight face
but there's not a million dimensions THAT MATTER. there's only one that matters, that exerts a force, derived from the way we think, the way we socialize, that assembles all of these issues along one axis
we don't talk about left and right wing because we are simpletons and reductionists, we talk about left and right wing because this is an entirely real and completely dominant ideological pivot, a genuinely valuable metric to use when debating politics: rate of change. we don't use this as a shorthand to decribe something far more complex that is going on, we use right versus left because this genuinely reflects the way our mind thinks about things and organizes issues and options. and from this springs the reason two parties will always come to dominate, in societies that are purely ideological in its political landscape
all other parties are related to social side issues, mostly historical geographic differences, which creates a chasm of trust, across which political affiliation is not purely ideological
for example: quebec interests in canada with the bloc quebecois. class issues in india. show me a country with a significant third or fourth party, and i will show you a party centered on an ethnicity, a language, a region, or some other chasm of trust that allows this nonideologically derived party to assemble. of course all parties are ideological, but not all of them have their reason for existence deriving from a pure ideological play
but in countries where pure ideological plays dominate, two parties dominate. and each party examines each issue from the point of view of rate of change, and has a platform on that issue that coopts the existence of any third or fourth party to take a significant option that is not already enunciated by one of the major two
yes: two parties are the inevitable dominant status quo in all democracies, in all places, in all times. aberations from a dominant two parties is because of artifacts of culture/ language/ ethnicity/ class/ etc., often along geographic lines
so you see more than two parties all over europe because europe is a patchwork of tiny ethnicities. in one country, you can go to the next valley over, and they have an entirely different culture, or even language. in belgium you have flanders and the walloons. in spain you have the basque, catalonia, andalucia, etc. this geographic and classist fractionation is the force that means more than two parties are in play. modernization and mobility slowly erode these differences, sometimes it takes a long time, but inevitably, smaller parties of smaller nonideologically-derived allegiances eventually fade
in the usa, you have pretty much the same amalgam of people in san franciso as you have in new york, miami as in seattle. same language. same tv shows every night. of course, it wasn't always this way: the southeastern portion of the country was largely distinct at one time. and in fact, historically, this was the era of the republicans, democrats, and whigs, and a number of other fractional interests. but as the country emerged from this more stratified and separated environment, the his
in a democracy, the people's agenda becomes the government's agenda on a regular basis. in china, and other authoritarian systems, what the government's agenda is is not necessarily what the people's agenda is. so you can't speak of what the chinese people want as you do above, you can only speak of what some grumpy technocrats in beijing want
of course many chinese people have faith in their technocrats. that's easy for the technocrats to have in good times. the technocrats have delivered on a massive economic success by throwing out the communism in Communism. but when times get tough, which is inevitable, the people will grow disillusioned, and when they do, they will have their own ideas about what their government should do. if china were a democracy, the people's disappointments will find solace in a new regime and a new diktat. but when they are looking at the same grumpy old men after a decade of stagflation or whatever, there is massive growth in social instability. its inevitable
on that basis, it is perfectly valid for anyone outside the country to judge the chinese government and find it defective, and most importantly, to find it defective IN THE NAME OF the chinese people. it would not be valid for an outsider to criticize the chinese government if it were a democracy. if china were a democracy, you would have to say you are criticizing china, or criticizing the chinese people. but right now, when i criticize the chinese government, i am in no way criticizing the people, simply because the chinese government is not composed of the will of the chinese people, only the will of a small cadre in beijing
its a constant problem people have when talking about china, or iran, or other authoritarian regimes: when the government does something, and outsiders criticize that policy, it is not valid to say "how dare you, this is what the chinese want", or "you have no right, this is what the iranians want". no: its what a small elite want in those countries. which is not necessarily what the people themselves want. like in iran right now, and like it will be in china someday when the economy stops growing. there's a disconnect in nondemocracies there that you need to recognize
since china is not a democracy, you can't talk about what china is, or what china wants. you can only talk about what the chinese government is, and the chinese government wants. that's the essential defect with nondemocracies, and why they inevitably fail: the agenda of the government and the agenda of the people eventually part ways and stray apart, often during tough times (which china is not in now, but all countries go through tough times)
what you see in iran does not happen in democracies. because the government is what the people actually want, because the government actually consulted the will of the people in a vote. there's no massive anger on the streets. oh sure, there's anger in democracies, always, in all countries. but if the democracy is genuinely functioning, then that anger is the minority of people, not the majority. the vote is the pressure release valve that nondemocracies don't have. in nondemocracies, that pressure can only grow. you can't ever get rid of malcontent, in any society. but only in a genuinely functioning democracy can you minimize it below the threshold of revolution and rioting and unrest
democracies, for all of their messiness, provide something far more important than anything the chinese government provides: legitimacy. "i am the legitimate representation of the will of the people": only a democracy can say this. the chinese government cannot say this. it doesn't matter how much propaganda they churn out, the truth is the truth: the will of the chinese people is not consulted, therefore, the chinese government is illegitimate
on that basis, it is perfectly valid for outsiders to criticize the chinese government, and most importantly, to criticize it in the name of the chinese people. the chinese government is a representation of the will of a bunch of grumpy technocrats. not a superior substitute for the people's will, ever, in any country, in any time
the internet has rendered all copyright laws obsolete
let them pass all the laws they want. its unenforceable and therefore pointless. sure they can nab the occasional grandma for what her grandson's friend does, or the occasional soccer mom for what her neighbor does with her unprotected wifi. its all just more bad pr for the corporate goons
new technology changes the law. the law does not change new technology. of course they always try, but it will take a decade or more before the morons wake up to reality. until such time, happy obfuscated downloading
that is, a post that has to loudly and voluminously announce how much they don't care
paraphrasing shakespeare: methinks the lady doth protest too much
hey, genius, if you didn't care... YOU WOULDN'T POST
proof of not caring is not commenting, not being here
there really are people who don't care about this debate. those people are playing videogames or twiddling on facebook right now. if they saw this thread, they wouldn't even roll their eyes (too much caring in that effort), they'd just click away, truly uninterested. meanwhile, you: you're deep in a thread writing a large comment about how much you don't care. no one is holding a gun to your head to post a comment, friend
fact: if you comment, emotionally, voluminously, AND WITH ALL CAPS, you obviously fucking care
no matter what the voting system, we will tend towards two parties. this is because while there is a million ideologies out there, all of mankind assembles along the most important ideological spectrum: rate of change. slower change, right leaning, or faster change, left leaning. third and fourth parties merely represent the fringe: people who want change to stop, or even move backwards: far-right reactionaries, and people who want massive social and political revolution to leap frog into some untested dubious new arena: far left wack jobs
also, some third and fourth parties represent temporary extraideolgical issues like, for example, the ethnic imperatives of quebec in canada, or issues of traditional classism in england, or the amalgam of domestic geopolitical issues in india, etc. as a country tends towards purely ideologically driven politics, rate of change, and the desire to slow things down or speed things up, becomes the dominant political axis across which all other issues assemble. and therefore two political parties dominate. all other parties are marginal, extraideological satellites
even in once one party dominant countries, as long as the dominant party plays fair and allows mostly free elections and aren't authoritarian, like mexico and japan, a two party system begins to assert itself
"And if solar cycles are the cause, there's not a darn thing humans can do about it except adapt."
you really believe that?
if climate change threatens our economic well being, you rest assured that century or two of focused scientific innovation and politically supported engineering and industrial policies will, without a doubt, counteract natural changes, like a cooling or a heating solar cycle cause
nuclear detonations at volcanic regions to cool things down under cloud cover (study factual little ice ages after massive historical volcanic eruptions in man's historical written record)
purposeful amping up of CO2 output to greenhouse effect heat things up
there's all sorts of things we can do
we have amazing technological abilities compared to just a century ago, nevermind what powers we will discover in another century or two
in 2 or 3 centuries, this entire planet will have a micromanaged climate, if civilization doesn't break down. then the issue will be political bickering between, for example, morocco wishing to do away with more sahara so it can can grow more crops, while brazil says this costs them money to counteract the related drying up of the amazon due to morocco's efforts. we already see this sort of environmental bickering between nations over the damming and controlling of rivers that cross national boundaries
lets put it this way: our ancestors would be in amazed awe at our ability to completely redirect an entire river if we wanted to, and as we frequently do in today's world. but ancient man, in looking at the hard work of beavers, would not think it in the realm of the impossible for us to do that one day
likewise, today, looking at how past volcanic eruptions have led to mini-ice ages, i, like ancient man before me looking at beavers, see that future micromanaging of our climate is not impossible, and will be someday a mundane matter-of-fact effort, like garbage disposal and plumbing
the ability to plunge the entire planet into winter: just detonate all of our nuclear warheads
we won't do that. i'm simply countering your supposition that the earth is large and we are small. we WERE once so small as you believe. we aren't anymore
we're simply not going to accept the next ice age or the next sahara age. we're going to actively prevent it. when the amazon is drying up, and the taiga is melting, and the streets of london and shanghai are as venice, we will find the industrial, scientific and political willpower to oppose that
simply because massive ecosystem change will imperil billions on this planet and their economic well-being. we will therefore assemble to resist climate change. this is what we do: we are homo sapiens. we do not adapt to nature. nature adapts to us
if you don't understand or believe we have the power to alter our ecosystem, or that for some reason we won't alter our climate when climate change threatens us, manmade or natural, then you are in some sort of serious denial about what kind of creature we really are
Slashdot Mirror
but i'll take a bite at that retarded bait anyways: is the constitution not the fucking bible. it is a living breathing contract for a living breathing society. it grows and changes as the society grows and changes. the constitution is not the fucking quran that requires a holy war if someone suggests the horrible sacriledge of a new better way TO ENSURE OUR FREEDOMS FROM IRRESPONSIBLE ASSHOLES
fact: you are not exercising a right when you do not to have health insurance. you are offloading your responsibility for your health onto me
let me repeat that for the hard of understanding:
you. are. not. exercising. a. right. when. you. do. not. to. have. health. insurance. you. are. offloading. your. responsibility. to. take. care. of. your. health. onto. me.
there is no logical route around this simple obvious as fucking day truth
that you don't understand this fucking obvious truth means nothing more than us, the society you expect to pay for your healthcosts, has to compel you, kicking and screaming TO LIVE UP TO YOUR MOTHERFUCKING RESPONSIBILITIES. we are not imposing on your freedoms in the least, moron, we are making sure you are not imposing on OUR freedoms. get it?
is it acceptable that i walk by you dying in the street because you have no health insurance and no way to pay for care? of course not. therefore, you better be fucking RESPONSIBLE and pay for unforeseen costs with insurance. unless you believe you are an immortal and will never be injured beyond your means
it is only this delusion of immortality that could convince you that holding your ground in this retarded argument any further makes the slightest bit of fucking sense
it is your responsibility to take care of your health. it is not my responsibility to take care of your health. correct?
any person alive today might be in the hospital by the end of the day. correct? are you immortal? do you deny this simple truth?
therefore, it is your responsibility to have insurance to make sure that you are paying for your health maintenance, which might include sudden unforeseen unaffordable costs. i shouldn't have to pay for it, correct?
therefore, if you do not have health insurance, you are not exercising a right of yours, you are abrogating a responsibility of yours. really. its quite fucking simple
that you think anything else is logically incoherent. follow the bouncing ball. it is airtight, simple logic. that you deny it is probably not a sign stupidity on your part, but judging by the quantity of effort you put into debating me, some sort of horrible propagandized state you live in. denial, denial, denial
look at every other industrialized democracy on this planet. having universal health care is a fucking brain dead obvious duty of a free society. SO MY FREEDOMS ARE NOT IMPOSED UPON BY YOUR UNFORESEEN COSTS. duh
question: can you drive without insurance?
answer: no, and you are punished if you get in accident and you do not have insurance
why? because you are imposing on everyone else's freedoms, by forcing them to pay for your accidents. you understand that, right?
if you understand that, why do you not understand the simple obvious logic about health care insurance? not getting health insurance is not you exercising a freedom of yours. not getting health insurance is you not fulfilling a responsibility of yours. can you honestly tell me with a straight face otherwise?
are you immune to sudden unforeseen health costs that you can't afford? unless you are a billionaire, the answer is no
therefore, as a matter of objective fact, you do need health insurance. furtermore, it must be mandated, because there are so many morons out there like you who can't tell the difference between a responsibility and a freedom
duh
if are a billionaire, you don't have to buy health insurance, because you can afford a sudden huge healthcare expense
now would like to comment on the reality of sudden horrible unaffordable health expenses for the other 99.9999% of us?
pfffffft
according to any philosphical understanding of what freedom means conceptually, freedom has never meant behavior which imposes on other people. your problem is you don't understand in which direction the imposition is happening in the healthcare debate. the issue is not that the government is imposing on you to pay for health insurance, the issue is you are imposing on society thinking you can walk around without health insurance
"You can't have freedom without responsibility."
this is exactly right. it is your responsibility to take care of your health. if you don't do that, you are not exercising a freedom of yours, you are acting irresponsibly. you are willfully or ignorantly avoiding the fact that if you are passed out on the ground, we can't simply walk by you, we have to take you to the hospital, or we aren't being ethical. therefore you MUST get health insurance because this is your RESPONSIBILITY. not having insurance is not a right or a freedom you are exercising, it is an act of IRRESPONSIBILITY you are committing
do you understand now?
if there were no laws against pseudoephedrine, you'd have more meth makers, and all of the society wide suffering that goes with that. the fact you can't buy pseudoephedrine is a different kind of suffering, but a smaller scale of suffering than not having the law around
life is not about black and white choices, its about shades of grey.you examine the issue in a vacuum, without the context of the negatives of your other choices, and this makes you have these hysterical opinions
and you NEED health insurance. even 21 yo marathoners have heart attacks and broken legs. if you believe you don't need health insurance, you have some sort of god complex, and then you definitely need mental health coverage
as for not affording it, you can't afford NOT to have it
as for making you pay for it: why force people to pay taxes? why not make it voluntary? because people are fucking irresponsible, and they won't pay for taxes, health insurance, or a whole bunch of other things they need but are usually too stupid to understand why they need it. so you NEED to force them because if given a choice, people won't do the right thing. which is pay your fucking taxes and pay your fucking health insurance. you HAVE to, because it is your RESPONSIBILITY as a member of SOCIETY from which you derive BENEFITS
if you buy health insurance right now, it continues to climb in price like no tomorrow, covers less and less every day, all to support a bloated inefficient system of companies competing to deny you coverage. under a single payer system, even if the government was 10x more inefficient and bureaucratic, it would still be cheaper, and you would be paying for a healthcare entity whose mandate is to take care of YOU, not some fucking stockholder
universal health care coverage is so fucking obviously superior to what we have now, i can only conclude morons and assholes who defy it do so only out of some alien atavistic hatred for simple, obvious progress
are you like those townhall retards who stand up and shout "big government, keep your socialist hands off my medicare!" (snicker)
you're going to PAY for healthcare one way or another genius. the current way you pay for it sucks FAR FAR WORSE than a government run system could ever be. try to understand the fucking obvious someday
the emir of enigmas
the nawab of nosiness
the sahib of silliness
the khan of the kafkaesque
you can have fun with this all day
and you have a heart attack, the hospital cannot turn you away, for simple ethical reasons. so when the bill comes due, and you can't pay, i have to pay for that out of my pocket. this is an imposition on MY freedom
if you have a car accident and have no insurance, they suspend your license. is this a horrible imposition on your freedom? no, its a horrible imposition on everyone else's freedom to drive around without insurance, and you deserve to be punished
if you understand that simple common sense, maybe you understand why you HAVE to buy insurance, and if you do not have insurance and you cost the taxpayers $20K to cover your hospital bills, you SHOULD be punished, for imposing on everyone else
there's no such thing as freedom from responsibility, asshole
if you feel like all of these interests are compelling you to care, this shows problems with your own psychology, not the world around you
you're a hysteric. calm the fuck down and do whatever the hell you want. no one is forcing you to do anything
its been below zero outside for weeks, snow is piled high. working on this house with sunken foot high wells for the basement windows, requiring you to clean out the snow and leaves that often gather in the wells, so it doesn't break the windows or leak water inside. so i'm yanking out this snow and compacted ice and leaves accumulated, and underneath, half frozen in the ice, is a dead toad. sad
then the fucker kicks me
absolutely blew my mind. well below zero in february. half frozen in ice. i put him back in the window well, give him a roof of leaves
this was two years ago. same toad still lives in the same window well to this day, dining all summer with gusto on the worms and bugs that fall in the well. never left. probably frozen under the snow right now. some sort of toad oasis
this is the reason why two parties come to dominate inevitably: right versus left is a basic duality springing from basic human psychology and the way we all think about issues
there are of course a million dimensions of ideology. there's gun toting right wingers... who grow pot on their rural farms. there's gay people... who are mostly right wing in thinking (the log cabin republicans). there's very religious people... who are utterly socialist in their thinking about taking care of the community, by the community. etc., etc., etc, ad nauseum
for every issue, there is a dimension of opinions. and there's a million issues. so for every person, there is a unique ideology. you could mix up make up the most seemingly contradictory impossible ideology of various opinions on various issues, and you'll probably find at least someone out there who believes that with a serious straight face
but there's not a million dimensions THAT MATTER. there's only one that matters, that exerts a force, derived from the way we think, the way we socialize, that assembles all of these issues along one axis
we don't talk about left and right wing because we are simpletons and reductionists, we talk about left and right wing because this is an entirely real and completely dominant ideological pivot, a genuinely valuable metric to use when debating politics: rate of change. we don't use this as a shorthand to decribe something far more complex that is going on, we use right versus left because this genuinely reflects the way our mind thinks about things and organizes issues and options. and from this springs the reason two parties will always come to dominate, in societies that are purely ideological in its political landscape
all other parties are related to social side issues, mostly historical geographic differences, which creates a chasm of trust, across which political affiliation is not purely ideological
for example: quebec interests in canada with the bloc quebecois. class issues in india. show me a country with a significant third or fourth party, and i will show you a party centered on an ethnicity, a language, a region, or some other chasm of trust that allows this nonideologically derived party to assemble. of course all parties are ideological, but not all of them have their reason for existence deriving from a pure ideological play
but in countries where pure ideological plays dominate, two parties dominate. and each party examines each issue from the point of view of rate of change, and has a platform on that issue that coopts the existence of any third or fourth party to take a significant option that is not already enunciated by one of the major two
yes: two parties are the inevitable dominant status quo in all democracies, in all places, in all times. aberations from a dominant two parties is because of artifacts of culture/ language/ ethnicity/ class/ etc., often along geographic lines
so you see more than two parties all over europe because europe is a patchwork of tiny ethnicities. in one country, you can go to the next valley over, and they have an entirely different culture, or even language. in belgium you have flanders and the walloons. in spain you have the basque, catalonia, andalucia, etc. this geographic and classist fractionation is the force that means more than two parties are in play. modernization and mobility slowly erode these differences, sometimes it takes a long time, but inevitably, smaller parties of smaller nonideologically-derived allegiances eventually fade
in the usa, you have pretty much the same amalgam of people in san franciso as you have in new york, miami as in seattle. same language. same tv shows every night. of course, it wasn't always this way: the southeastern portion of the country was largely distinct at one time. and in fact, historically, this was the era of the republicans, democrats, and whigs, and a number of other fractional interests. but as the country emerged from this more stratified and separated environment, the his
in a democracy, the people's agenda becomes the government's agenda on a regular basis. in china, and other authoritarian systems, what the government's agenda is is not necessarily what the people's agenda is. so you can't speak of what the chinese people want as you do above, you can only speak of what some grumpy technocrats in beijing want
of course many chinese people have faith in their technocrats. that's easy for the technocrats to have in good times. the technocrats have delivered on a massive economic success by throwing out the communism in Communism. but when times get tough, which is inevitable, the people will grow disillusioned, and when they do, they will have their own ideas about what their government should do. if china were a democracy, the people's disappointments will find solace in a new regime and a new diktat. but when they are looking at the same grumpy old men after a decade of stagflation or whatever, there is massive growth in social instability. its inevitable
on that basis, it is perfectly valid for anyone outside the country to judge the chinese government and find it defective, and most importantly, to find it defective IN THE NAME OF the chinese people. it would not be valid for an outsider to criticize the chinese government if it were a democracy. if china were a democracy, you would have to say you are criticizing china, or criticizing the chinese people. but right now, when i criticize the chinese government, i am in no way criticizing the people, simply because the chinese government is not composed of the will of the chinese people, only the will of a small cadre in beijing
its a constant problem people have when talking about china, or iran, or other authoritarian regimes: when the government does something, and outsiders criticize that policy, it is not valid to say "how dare you, this is what the chinese want", or "you have no right, this is what the iranians want". no: its what a small elite want in those countries. which is not necessarily what the people themselves want. like in iran right now, and like it will be in china someday when the economy stops growing. there's a disconnect in nondemocracies there that you need to recognize
since china is not a democracy, you can't talk about what china is, or what china wants. you can only talk about what the chinese government is, and the chinese government wants. that's the essential defect with nondemocracies, and why they inevitably fail: the agenda of the government and the agenda of the people eventually part ways and stray apart, often during tough times (which china is not in now, but all countries go through tough times)
what you see in iran does not happen in democracies. because the government is what the people actually want, because the government actually consulted the will of the people in a vote. there's no massive anger on the streets. oh sure, there's anger in democracies, always, in all countries. but if the democracy is genuinely functioning, then that anger is the minority of people, not the majority. the vote is the pressure release valve that nondemocracies don't have. in nondemocracies, that pressure can only grow. you can't ever get rid of malcontent, in any society. but only in a genuinely functioning democracy can you minimize it below the threshold of revolution and rioting and unrest
democracies, for all of their messiness, provide something far more important than anything the chinese government provides: legitimacy. "i am the legitimate representation of the will of the people": only a democracy can say this. the chinese government cannot say this. it doesn't matter how much propaganda they churn out, the truth is the truth: the will of the chinese people is not consulted, therefore, the chinese government is illegitimate
on that basis, it is perfectly valid for outsiders to criticize the chinese government, and most importantly, to criticize it in the name of the chinese people. the chinese government is a representation of the will of a bunch of grumpy technocrats. not a superior substitute for the people's will, ever, in any country, in any time
the internet has rendered all copyright laws obsolete
let them pass all the laws they want. its unenforceable and therefore pointless. sure they can nab the occasional grandma for what her grandson's friend does, or the occasional soccer mom for what her neighbor does with her unprotected wifi. its all just more bad pr for the corporate goons
new technology changes the law. the law does not change new technology. of course they always try, but it will take a decade or more before the morons wake up to reality. until such time, happy obfuscated downloading
is this a twist on the austria/ australia joke?
that is, a post that has to loudly and voluminously announce how much they don't care
paraphrasing shakespeare: methinks the lady doth protest too much
hey, genius, if you didn't care... YOU WOULDN'T POST
proof of not caring is not commenting, not being here
there really are people who don't care about this debate. those people are playing videogames or twiddling on facebook right now. if they saw this thread, they wouldn't even roll their eyes (too much caring in that effort), they'd just click away, truly uninterested. meanwhile, you: you're deep in a thread writing a large comment about how much you don't care. no one is holding a gun to your head to post a comment, friend
fact: if you comment, emotionally, voluminously, AND WITH ALL CAPS, you obviously fucking care
i'll ask questions before shooting, if you promise to take action when the time is right
always mindlessly acting is just as dangerous as thinking deeply and never acting
there is just as much danger in your bias towards inaction as in my bias towards action
two peaks in the rocky mountains are identical, indistinguishable
from the valley in between those two peaks, those same two peaks couldn't be more massively different
think about it
the link says it all
there are engineers who get stuff done, and there are whining ignorant morons who take up space. that's pretty much the entire human race
technical universities: start assembling the geoengineering major programs of study now, to get a jump on the upcoming scholastic trend
liberal arts universities: start a program on reality tv programs. pffft
no matter what the voting system, we will tend towards two parties. this is because while there is a million ideologies out there, all of mankind assembles along the most important ideological spectrum: rate of change. slower change, right leaning, or faster change, left leaning. third and fourth parties merely represent the fringe: people who want change to stop, or even move backwards: far-right reactionaries, and people who want massive social and political revolution to leap frog into some untested dubious new arena: far left wack jobs
also, some third and fourth parties represent temporary extraideolgical issues like, for example, the ethnic imperatives of quebec in canada, or issues of traditional classism in england, or the amalgam of domestic geopolitical issues in india, etc. as a country tends towards purely ideologically driven politics, rate of change, and the desire to slow things down or speed things up, becomes the dominant political axis across which all other issues assemble. and therefore two political parties dominate. all other parties are marginal, extraideological satellites
even in once one party dominant countries, as long as the dominant party plays fair and allows mostly free elections and aren't authoritarian, like mexico and japan, a two party system begins to assert itself
"And if solar cycles are the cause, there's not a darn thing humans can do about it except adapt."
you really believe that?
if climate change threatens our economic well being, you rest assured that century or two of focused scientific innovation and politically supported engineering and industrial policies will, without a doubt, counteract natural changes, like a cooling or a heating solar cycle cause
nuclear detonations at volcanic regions to cool things down under cloud cover (study factual little ice ages after massive historical volcanic eruptions in man's historical written record)
purposeful amping up of CO2 output to greenhouse effect heat things up
there's all sorts of things we can do
we have amazing technological abilities compared to just a century ago, nevermind what powers we will discover in another century or two
in 2 or 3 centuries, this entire planet will have a micromanaged climate, if civilization doesn't break down. then the issue will be political bickering between, for example, morocco wishing to do away with more sahara so it can can grow more crops, while brazil says this costs them money to counteract the related drying up of the amazon due to morocco's efforts. we already see this sort of environmental bickering between nations over the damming and controlling of rivers that cross national boundaries
lets put it this way: our ancestors would be in amazed awe at our ability to completely redirect an entire river if we wanted to, and as we frequently do in today's world. but ancient man, in looking at the hard work of beavers, would not think it in the realm of the impossible for us to do that one day
likewise, today, looking at how past volcanic eruptions have led to mini-ice ages, i, like ancient man before me looking at beavers, see that future micromanaging of our climate is not impossible, and will be someday a mundane matter-of-fact effort, like garbage disposal and plumbing
you just lack imagination and perception
the ability to plunge the entire planet into winter: just detonate all of our nuclear warheads
we won't do that. i'm simply countering your supposition that the earth is large and we are small. we WERE once so small as you believe. we aren't anymore
we're simply not going to accept the next ice age or the next sahara age. we're going to actively prevent it. when the amazon is drying up, and the taiga is melting, and the streets of london and shanghai are as venice, we will find the industrial, scientific and political willpower to oppose that
simply because massive ecosystem change will imperil billions on this planet and their economic well-being. we will therefore assemble to resist climate change. this is what we do: we are homo sapiens. we do not adapt to nature. nature adapts to us
if you don't understand or believe we have the power to alter our ecosystem, or that for some reason we won't alter our climate when climate change threatens us, manmade or natural, then you are in some sort of serious denial about what kind of creature we really are
of the results of your actions in a complex situation
but you proceed anyways, because the alternative, doing nothing, is guaranteed to fail
what you seek: certain results from new strategies, is an impossibility, and should therefore never drive your decision making