Unless you live in a swing state, voting for either major party is the real waste of your vote.
Let's say you live in California. No matter how you vote, California's electors are voting Democrat, and you and everyone you know voting one way or another isn't going to amount to a drop in the bucket in that matter.
So say you're liberal and you vote Democrat: you didn't actually help get a liberal into office and keep a conservative out, you just confirmed for the Democrats that they're doing the right thing to keep liberals voting for them, so they're going to be less likely to change because of your vote.
Now say you're a conservative and you vote Republican: you didn't actually get a conservative into office or keep the liberal out, but you confirmed for the Republicans that they're doing the right thing to get conservatives voting for them, so they're going to be less likely to change because of your vote.
But say you're liberal and you like the Greens' policies better than the Democrats, so you vote Green. You didn't keep a liberal out of office or let a conservative in; the Democrats still won. But when they look at the polling numbers, if enough liberals felt like you did, they will see that they lost some small percentage to the Greens, and start adopting Green policies to court those voters.
Likewise, say you're a conservative and you like the Libertarians' policies better than the Republicans, so you vote Republican. You didn't let a liberal into office or cost a conservative their chance; the Democrat was going to win anyway. But when the Republicans look at the polling numbers, if enough conservatives felt like you did, they will see that the lost some small percentage to the Libertarians, and start adopting Libertarian policies to court those voters.
If you live in a state where the margins are so close that your vote might actually make a difference, then by all means, vote strategically for the lesser of two evils. If you live anywhere else, a vote for either major party is wasted; it makes no difference in who gets elected in your state, and it makes no difference in the policies of the major parties. A third party vote also makes no difference in who gets elected in your state, but at lest it makes a difference in party policy. And if enough people realize this and start voting that way, then not only will third the major parties align more to voters' true wishes (instead of just thinking they're going the right way as they are), and not only will third parties actually get more support and possibly come closer to being real contenders, but more states will become swing states, and then your vote will actually make a real difference... and the major parties will really have to make sure to adopt the policies of the third parties encroaching on their demographics or they (e.g. California Democrats) might actually lose / they (e.g. California Republicans) might actually have a chance to win.
This so much. I get so tired of hearing "but Trump isn't like everyone else!" Being different is not inherently good or bad. Hillary seems to represent everything I dislike about the status quo of American political in general; all the bad things both major parties have in common, none of the exceptionally bad things exclusive to the right, few of the exceptionally bad things exclusive to the left. And that makes her... boring. Unappealing, yes, but in a "meh, you offer nothing that interests me" kind of way. Trump, meanwhile, is actively courting the loonies of the lunatic fringe. Yeah, that's sure different from an unappealing mainstream politician... and I guess it's "interesting" in the same way a train wreck or mudslide is "interesting", in that it catches your attention. But that doesn't make it more appealing.
It's like, you have to be partnered with someone in an activity where you will be personally engaged with them for a while, and your choices are: a wholly unremarkable person with most of the common flaws people have and nothing to really make up for them; or an abject nutbar asshole. Sure, neither of them are people you want to be your friends, but if you have to hang out with one of them for a while, does the asshole being "less boring" really make him better?
The United States is a democratic republic. That means there are aspects of democracy, and aspects of a republic.
Most of what you wrote is spot on, but this bit suggests that you think "republic" means "representative democracy" (and "democracy" simpliciter means "direct democracy"). Republicanism is orthogonal to democracy; the US is both, not somewhere in between them. The UK is not a republic, but it is no less a representative democracy than the US.
If you would prefer doing things alone by yourself instead of with other people, the vast majority of whom are shitty and not worthy of your time, there's something wrong with you!/sarcasm
And those figures aren't even the ones I was talking about; those are household incomes, where the median household is two people. So that median $50k household is the product of two $25k incomes, on average. Individuals making over $50k themselves are about twice as rare as those in household making over $50k combined.
"Almost everyone in the country" can't afford a house payment in the first place, and THEIR taxes won't be going up. "Lower middle class" is already better-off than almost everyone in the goddamn country.
You realize ~50% of Americans make under ~$25k a year, and ~75% of them make under ~$50k?
Poverty is not caused just by the absence of resources in the world but by the misallocation of the resources.
There may be enough to give people sufficient food, clothes, and shelter, but people still lack that food, clothes, and shelter, and so are still in poverty.
I mostly agree with you on the larger principle, but noise pollution isn't in the same category as painting your house an ugly color or not mowing your lawn. The latter affect the content of the light hitting your property, but not the quantity. It would be different if your neighbor, say, shone a flood light over your whole property in the middle of the night, or put on constant laser light shows or something.
Likewise, if the content of the sounds coming from your neighbor aren't to your liking, but the quantity of sound is nothing out of the ordinary, you have nothing to complain about; but if the quantity of sound coming from your neighbor is excessive, you have every right to complain about that.
How does that work? What happens if you don't pay the fee -- they kick you out of jail? And do inmates even have money to spend? I thought that's why cigarettes were used as makeshift currency, because nobody had actual currency.
Nope, you just have to keep taking out more and more loans to survive on instead!
I finished my bachelor's debt-free thanks to poor parents and good grades earning my grants enough that I only had to work to survive. I would have loved getting a higher degree still, but grant don't cover graduate studies and I couldn't afford to go into debt.
Sounds great. Is the college funding going to fund my survival during that "gap year" too, or is that "year off" just going to be filled with crap bottom-rung overtime work / starving underemployment that's even more stressful than college and the whole fucking reason to get a degree in the first place?
I did a "gap year" (and a half) involuntarily because I had no idea that my poverty-ridden ass living in the toolshed next to dad's trailer could get college funding and so assumed college just wasn't a thing for me. Instead I alternate worked my ass off and tried to work at all with the limit job prospects someone with no education has. Actually starting college at last was an unbelievable breath of fresh air compared to that bullshit.
"Damaging someone's property value" by doing something entirely to your own property is an "injury" only in the same way that "damaging someone's labor value" by your own labor (e.g. by competing with them for business) is an "injury": maybe in some kind of causal sense, but not in any normative sense that should be legally actionable.
The problem is, how do you test for whether someone is a sociopath, and how do you keep the sociopaths who already have power from capturing that selection process to make sure anyone they don't like can't get into power.
I don't think he was pointing to sadists to justify prisons, but rather pointing out that to sadists, the prisons may need no justification; the fact that other people are suffering is enough for them, whether or not it solves any other problem well or at all.
No seriously, that is an interesting interpretation of history I'm not familiar with and I'd like to hear more about it from something more reliable than an anonymous commenter on Slashdot.
Obviously, we haven't fixed poverty yet, because we still have poverty.
Which doesn't refute the point that private charity alone was never solution enough, because if it were, it would have fixed poverty. Since poverty isn't fixed yet, private charity isn't enough, and neither are any of the other solutions we've currently implemented.
(Which doesn't constitute an argument that we should stop those other solutions, any more than it would constitute an argument that we should stop all private charity, which nobody is arguing).
Slashdot Mirror
Likewise, say you're a conservative and you like the Libertarians' policies better than the Republicans, so you vote Republican.
Brain fart there; I meant "so you vote Libertarian".
Unless you live in a swing state, voting for either major party is the real waste of your vote.
Let's say you live in California. No matter how you vote, California's electors are voting Democrat, and you and everyone you know voting one way or another isn't going to amount to a drop in the bucket in that matter.
So say you're liberal and you vote Democrat: you didn't actually help get a liberal into office and keep a conservative out, you just confirmed for the Democrats that they're doing the right thing to keep liberals voting for them, so they're going to be less likely to change because of your vote.
Now say you're a conservative and you vote Republican: you didn't actually get a conservative into office or keep the liberal out, but you confirmed for the Republicans that they're doing the right thing to get conservatives voting for them, so they're going to be less likely to change because of your vote.
But say you're liberal and you like the Greens' policies better than the Democrats, so you vote Green. You didn't keep a liberal out of office or let a conservative in; the Democrats still won. But when they look at the polling numbers, if enough liberals felt like you did, they will see that they lost some small percentage to the Greens, and start adopting Green policies to court those voters.
Likewise, say you're a conservative and you like the Libertarians' policies better than the Republicans, so you vote Republican. You didn't let a liberal into office or cost a conservative their chance; the Democrat was going to win anyway. But when the Republicans look at the polling numbers, if enough conservatives felt like you did, they will see that the lost some small percentage to the Libertarians, and start adopting Libertarian policies to court those voters.
If you live in a state where the margins are so close that your vote might actually make a difference, then by all means, vote strategically for the lesser of two evils. If you live anywhere else, a vote for either major party is wasted; it makes no difference in who gets elected in your state, and it makes no difference in the policies of the major parties. A third party vote also makes no difference in who gets elected in your state, but at lest it makes a difference in party policy. And if enough people realize this and start voting that way, then not only will third the major parties align more to voters' true wishes (instead of just thinking they're going the right way as they are), and not only will third parties actually get more support and possibly come closer to being real contenders, but more states will become swing states, and then your vote will actually make a real difference... and the major parties will really have to make sure to adopt the policies of the third parties encroaching on their demographics or they (e.g. California Democrats) might actually lose / they (e.g. California Republicans) might actually have a chance to win.
This so much. I get so tired of hearing "but Trump isn't like everyone else!" Being different is not inherently good or bad. Hillary seems to represent everything I dislike about the status quo of American political in general; all the bad things both major parties have in common, none of the exceptionally bad things exclusive to the right, few of the exceptionally bad things exclusive to the left. And that makes her... boring. Unappealing, yes, but in a "meh, you offer nothing that interests me" kind of way. Trump, meanwhile, is actively courting the loonies of the lunatic fringe. Yeah, that's sure different from an unappealing mainstream politician... and I guess it's "interesting" in the same way a train wreck or mudslide is "interesting", in that it catches your attention. But that doesn't make it more appealing.
It's like, you have to be partnered with someone in an activity where you will be personally engaged with them for a while, and your choices are: a wholly unremarkable person with most of the common flaws people have and nothing to really make up for them; or an abject nutbar asshole. Sure, neither of them are people you want to be your friends, but if you have to hang out with one of them for a while, does the asshole being "less boring" really make him better?
The United States is a democratic republic. That means there are aspects of democracy, and aspects of a republic.
Most of what you wrote is spot on, but this bit suggests that you think "republic" means "representative democracy" (and "democracy" simpliciter means "direct democracy"). Republicanism is orthogonal to democracy; the US is both, not somewhere in between them. The UK is not a republic, but it is no less a representative democracy than the US.
How do you feel about the floodlights and laser shows, and how are those different (if they are)?
If you would prefer doing things alone by yourself instead of with other people, the vast majority of whom are shitty and not worthy of your time, there's something wrong with you! /sarcasm
And those figures aren't even the ones I was talking about; those are household incomes, where the median household is two people. So that median $50k household is the product of two $25k incomes, on average. Individuals making over $50k themselves are about twice as rare as those in household making over $50k combined.
Your median is household income (for the median two-person household), not personal income (which is unsurprisingly half that).
Bernie has said that if he did fail to get the Democratic nomination, he would throw his support behind Hillary.
"Almost everyone in the country" can't afford a house payment in the first place, and THEIR taxes won't be going up. "Lower middle class" is already better-off than almost everyone in the goddamn country.
You realize ~50% of Americans make under ~$25k a year, and ~75% of them make under ~$50k?
It's also pretty centrist from an American historical perspective, and from a policies-the-general-American-populace-actually-support perspective.
It's only "extreme leftist" from a myopic, mainstream-media-manufactured view of the political spectrum.
Poverty is not caused just by the absence of resources in the world but by the misallocation of the resources.
There may be enough to give people sufficient food, clothes, and shelter, but people still lack that food, clothes, and shelter, and so are still in poverty.
These fruit vendors weren't on their own private property, they were on public property adjacent to someone else's private property.
I mostly agree with you on the larger principle, but noise pollution isn't in the same category as painting your house an ugly color or not mowing your lawn. The latter affect the content of the light hitting your property, but not the quantity. It would be different if your neighbor, say, shone a flood light over your whole property in the middle of the night, or put on constant laser light shows or something.
Likewise, if the content of the sounds coming from your neighbor aren't to your liking, but the quantity of sound is nothing out of the ordinary, you have nothing to complain about; but if the quantity of sound coming from your neighbor is excessive, you have every right to complain about that.
Jesus Christ, that is unconscionable.
I want to say more but I don't even know what more to say.
How does that work? What happens if you don't pay the fee -- they kick you out of jail? And do inmates even have money to spend? I thought that's why cigarettes were used as makeshift currency, because nobody had actual currency.
"Invoca is a software company based in Santa Barbara, California..." from the first line of the company's Wikipedia page.
That is basic research.
Spoken like someone with parents wealthy enough to continue supporting them longer than it's legally mandated.
Nope, you just have to keep taking out more and more loans to survive on instead!
I finished my bachelor's debt-free thanks to poor parents and good grades earning my grants enough that I only had to work to survive. I would have loved getting a higher degree still, but grant don't cover graduate studies and I couldn't afford to go into debt.
Sounds great. Is the college funding going to fund my survival during that "gap year" too, or is that "year off" just going to be filled with crap bottom-rung overtime work / starving underemployment that's even more stressful than college and the whole fucking reason to get a degree in the first place?
I did a "gap year" (and a half) involuntarily because I had no idea that my poverty-ridden ass living in the toolshed next to dad's trailer could get college funding and so assumed college just wasn't a thing for me. Instead I alternate worked my ass off and tried to work at all with the limit job prospects someone with no education has. Actually starting college at last was an unbelievable breath of fresh air compared to that bullshit.
"Damaging someone's property value" by doing something entirely to your own property is an "injury" only in the same way that "damaging someone's labor value" by your own labor (e.g. by competing with them for business) is an "injury": maybe in some kind of causal sense, but not in any normative sense that should be legally actionable.
The problem is, how do you test for whether someone is a sociopath, and how do you keep the sociopaths who already have power from capturing that selection process to make sure anyone they don't like can't get into power.
I don't think he was pointing to sadists to justify prisons, but rather pointing out that to sadists, the prisons may need no justification; the fact that other people are suffering is enough for them, whether or not it solves any other problem well or at all.
Citation needed.
No seriously, that is an interesting interpretation of history I'm not familiar with and I'd like to hear more about it from something more reliable than an anonymous commenter on Slashdot.
Obviously, we haven't fixed poverty yet, because we still have poverty.
Which doesn't refute the point that private charity alone was never solution enough, because if it were, it would have fixed poverty. Since poverty isn't fixed yet, private charity isn't enough, and neither are any of the other solutions we've currently implemented.
(Which doesn't constitute an argument that we should stop those other solutions, any more than it would constitute an argument that we should stop all private charity, which nobody is arguing).