Then you made the irrelevant comment that technically the US is a republic, and therefore the quote used by the person talking about politicians buying votes was accurate.
This is where the confusion exists. The politicians buying votes is accurate, but it's not because of democracy, as the US is not and has never been a democracy.
Then I pointed out that clearly that person has meant his definition of "democracy" to include the American system of government.
Which is incorrect as I stated.
We may actually be agreeing, just experiencing semantic confusion.
The person who posted the quote was clearly implying that western democracies (e.g. the US and the UK) are faltering because people have "voted themselves largess from the treasury" in the form of social programs.
Your pedantic focus on the differences between republics and democracies is irrelevant.
No, you're not going far enough back in the thread. The original posit was that US politicians used promises of government entitlement programs and other such to buy votes. From there it descended into blaming democracy, which is incorrect.
I mean, if you want to have a discussion without regard to facts or history, we could always talk about how admirably honest politicians are and how Germany won WW2.
So one of those things about capitalism is that, if successful, you tend to acquire more capital. It is of course impossible to distinguish between money and power in any meaningful sense, so limitations on private power are limitations on how much money someone can be made.
The foolish will try to say that it is possible to restrict how money may be used. If you don't find this idea absurd, you may be a (particularly hypocritical brand of) libertarian.
If concentration of wealth is not an expected outcome of capitalism, you will have to redefine capitalism for us. If wealth is not power, you'll frankly have to pull the other one, but we'll allow you to explain your delusions. If the above two premises is true, then corruption is inevitable.
I'll take some form of progressive taxation and a 100% estate tax, thanks. The best way to eliminate abuse of power seems to be to ensure that people don't have lots of it for very long.
Yes, government corruption always happens when government has powers that can benefit some monied interest.
The answer is not to condemn everyone to poverty and/or limit individual/corporate wealth to control corruption, but to limit government power so that there are fewer and less-powerful reasons to bribe some politician while also making it more risky for both parties.
If a government/politician has no powers that could tilt the scales favorably for monied interests, they'll find something else more productive to spend their money on.
If NYC for example had chosen to license taxis like many other cities do without the medallion system, that whole corrupt partnership between city officials and the few big cab companies, built around the medallion system, wouldn't exist.
The essence of capitalism is corruuption and cronyism.
Capitalism works, but these things go with the territory.
Except corruption & cronyism aren't symptoms of capitalism, they are human nature and that statement rings true for a number of other things in place of "capitalism" in that first sentence; "The essence of (mankind/big government/Progressivism) is corruption and cronyism".
Corruption and cronyism are the result of basic human nature, of which greed, avarice, and hunger for power come to mind as some of the major driving forces.
There's typically plenty of corruption and cronyism among hardcore communist and socialist countries as well. Usually much worse than anything the US has experienced so far.
Corruption and cronyism happen whenever a small group of people have power and there are not enough checks placed on their use of that power. Doesn't matter what type of government or economic/social systems are in place.
Private power/big corporations corrupting government. Small businesses do less/less-organized bribing.
You got it backwards.
Politicians convince us to give them (or they simply grab) some power, and then they work with their cronies outside government of all types, not just commercial interests, to "monetize" this new power of government to benefit themselves while keeping out competition and taking away freedom and wealth from everyone else. They also use their power to make sure even the honest businesses and officials must either "play ball" and go along/keep quiet about the corruption or face the consequences. Just like the mob.
The NYC politicians and bureaucrats took the power to regulate taxis, implemented the medallion system, and now have themselves a nice racket that any mob boss would envy, "all legal-like, see?".
You can't fix it by only attacking the side that doesn't have the power to write/enforce/adjudicate laws and has the monopoly on the use of lethal force. If the government is corrupt, just exactly how effective do you expect it will be (and has been so far) in bringing it's partners-in-crime (the corporations you refer too) to justice? You know, the guys they've been protecting and helping? It's like expecting the local sheriff in some tiny 1930's-era deep-south town to bust members of the local KKK for some violent acts when the sheriff is the leader.
We've been steadily giving the government more and more power and taxpayer wealth for over a half-century to cure these problems, and after each time we've allowed government more powers and taxes the problems have gotten worse.
You wouldn't happen to believe that global warming isn't man made or that we never landed on the moon, would you?
I believe the global climate is in a warming trend coming out of the last ice age, and that mankind may be responsible for some portion of the warming, but how much is up for debate, as is what can realistically be done about it that would actually have a enough effect to be worthwhile and not either destroy economies and/or cause widespread deaths, famines, etc, and/or be used as a means for governments to grab more power, wealth, and control. Not to mention some Terra-forming ideas put forth as "cures" could potentially result in ecological disaster.
Seeing as how I watched the moon landings live on TV and also worked for one of the contractors putting ceramic heat tiles on the shuttle at one point, yes, we landed on the moon.
These regulations are about preventing competition, lower fares, and about protecting the gravy train for, and lining the pockets of, the politically-connected cronies and the politicians while removing/limiting the choices people have, silly.
FTFY. Large companies own nearly all the medallions in NYC.
Yes, because government set it up that way intentionally with their medallion system.
Government doesn't want a bunch of independent operators and small companies. They're too hard to regulate/tax/control, and too difficult/time-consuming for government to obtain details of passengers' travels that they want to track, and they don't provide the kickbacks the medallion system generates.
I take it that stating something that may be politically controversial is a 'troll' now on slashdot. Rather than having the decency to respond to my post with some informed criticism, you choose to mod me "-1, disagree". Undo your mod, press reply, and tell me what, exactly, you disagree with. Because while I might be full of sarcasm, I don't think I've said anything a lot of people wouldn't agree with or find a factual basis for.
Welcome to the People's Democratic Republic of Slashdot.
This happens to me all the time. Just ignore it.
All it does is prove that your attackers have no credible rebuttals, and thus strengthens the credibility of your posts.
I browse/. at "-1" because those are usually the posts that actually make the most sense and contribute the most to the discussion, if they're not GNAA/goatse/Netcraft posts.
Slashdot moderation abuse has nearly succeeded in completely flipping the whole ranking system on it's head, where the better posts are at "-1" and the trolls/shills/useful idiots are at "+5". This is particularly true regarding political-topic submissions and discussion threads.
Another case of government corruption & cronyism gone full retard
FTFY
These regulations have nothing whatsoever to do with capitalism, except that they contribute to distorting, corrupting, abusing, impeding, and destroying capitalism.
So I'm actually somewhat lost on your point with HIV, I think it detracts from your other valid point about politicized science, tbh.
This.
I was reading along, thinking he was making some decent, logical arguments and then..."wut? HIV? wtf?"
An o/t bridge too far, and didn't really add much to his general arguments over other possible, and more on-topic, arguments he could easily have offered instead imho.
And a dumb fucking electorate gave the cowboy the chance.
If we need to start blaming someone, blame the American people. They are dumb as shit and they elect idiots who don't give a shit about the planet. Given a choice between cheap gas for the SUV or a future for their grandchildren, what do you think they will pick?
Yeah, we shouldn't give that stupid electorate a chance to interfere with what we say is right, and....
I know the Gauss Rifle has been a standard piece of weaponry in the Mechwarrior series from the BattelTech universe.
Still have fond memories of configuring MW4MERCS/VENG "pop-tart" "gauss-boat" sniper 'mechs (mech with jump-jets and loaded with all the gauss-rifles it can carry, maybe with an additional laser or two if room permits) that could suddenly pop up over the crest of a medium-distant hill/ridge and salvo-fire all weapons and ruin an unwary opposing mechwarrior's whole day.
So your argument is that someone somewhere sometime in the future may force you to use a safety feature against your will, so you'll happily sacrifice babies to stop that from happening.
Oh, please. Enough with the dramatic hyperbole. Nobody is guaranteed safety. To live in a free and open society is to accept risk. Things would be much safer for everyone if people were all kept locked down and controlled in nice, safe cells and housing units as well.
How much freedom must be sacrificed to "safety"? How much safety is enough? How little freedom (without privacy, and the ability to be anonymous in communications and travel, there cannot be freedom) must we be willing to tolerate in the name of "safety"?
I mean, c'mon man! You just uttered a classic/. meme and rights-violating argument; "Think of the children!" with your "sacrifice babies" bit. That tired old mantra is always trotted out by those who want to remove more rights and choices from people.
If you take as a given that the government as a whole and both major parties are corrupt, then why in $DEITY's name would anyone think giving them more power would be a good idea? It's been this way for quite a while now, we've been giving them more and more power to fix it. Strangely, it's always gotten even worse every single time.
You aren't losing any liberty. And nowhere in the discussion of them has anyone mentioned requiring you sell your old car and buy an automatic one. You are the only one here championing the loss of liberty. You don't like the safe cars, so you want them banned, right?
To seriously believe that automatic cars won't become mandatory and a method for government tracking & control once they are partially implemented is self-delusion if one has any knowledge of history.
It's a compromise like politicians asking us; "Hey, can we put just a "little* of our dicks in your mouth? Why won't you even consider a compromise? It would benefit the majority. Why are you being so unreasonable?"
Maybe you don't mind it, but the rest of us do mind, thanks but no thanks.
So build your own fucking road and drive on it. But when you're on a public road - shove your 'responsibility' up your ass and use automatic system.
Because we for many prefer not to be driven into by an idiot who thinks that they can drive 'safely'.
No.
Go build your own fucking totalitarian country where you have no privacy and no freedom.
How dare you attempt to tell everyone they must all give up their privacy and freedom simply to ensure your safety, after so many have given their lives to give freedom to all of us. Trust me, you're not that important. It's not worth even a million just like you.
What hubris!
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
I know this is off topic, but from your post, I'm curious if you're an admirer of the late Ken Fishcher's amps/circuit designs. Some of my favorite designs.
Oh sure, Ken Fischer's Trainwreck amps are icons and works of art. Right on the edge of instability, just like a good fighter plane.
Howard Dumble is another icon and his Dumble amps are legendary works of art that fetch tens of thousands of dollars.
From the article I read the laptop was owned by the agent not the FBI which raises a whole pant load of other questions.
No, it's actually quite simple.
The agent was in the process of collecting data, etc for the purpose of starting his own FBI.
With blackjack.
And hookers.
But the Secret Service got mad because blackjack & hookers were their gig, and so they hacked this FBI agent's computer and released the data to Anonymous.
The SS doesn't want to have their agents blow into town only to find all the blackjack and hookers are already booked solid by these new-FBI agents.
Slashdot Mirror
Then you made the irrelevant comment that technically the US is a republic, and therefore the quote used by the person talking about politicians buying votes was accurate.
This is where the confusion exists. The politicians buying votes is accurate, but it's not because of democracy, as the US is not and has never been a democracy.
Then I pointed out that clearly that person has meant his definition of "democracy" to include the American system of government.
Which is incorrect as I stated.
We may actually be agreeing, just experiencing semantic confusion.
Strat
Except no one really believes the MB is in charge.
Well, except for the MB and the Egyptians, that is.
But what do they know, right?
Strat
The person who posted the quote was clearly implying that western democracies (e.g. the US and the UK) are faltering because people have "voted themselves largess from the treasury" in the form of social programs.
Your pedantic focus on the differences between republics and democracies is irrelevant.
No, you're not going far enough back in the thread. The original posit was that US politicians used promises of government entitlement programs and other such to buy votes. From there it descended into blaming democracy, which is incorrect.
I mean, if you want to have a discussion without regard to facts or history, we could always talk about how admirably honest politicians are and how Germany won WW2.
Strat
The US has been a democracy for over 200 years
This is incorrect.
The US is a representative republic not a democracy, and designed intentionally so, precisely for the reasons outlined in that quote.
Strat
So one of those things about capitalism is that, if successful, you tend to acquire more capital. It is of course impossible to distinguish between money and power in any meaningful sense, so limitations on private power are limitations on how much money someone can be made.
The foolish will try to say that it is possible to restrict how money may be used. If you don't find this idea absurd, you may be a (particularly hypocritical brand of) libertarian.
If concentration of wealth is not an expected outcome of capitalism, you will have to redefine capitalism for us.
If wealth is not power, you'll frankly have to pull the other one, but we'll allow you to explain your delusions.
If the above two premises is true, then corruption is inevitable.
I'll take some form of progressive taxation and a 100% estate tax, thanks. The best way to eliminate abuse of power seems to be to ensure that people don't have lots of it for very long.
Yes, government corruption always happens when government has powers that can benefit some monied interest.
The answer is not to condemn everyone to poverty and/or limit individual/corporate wealth to control corruption, but to limit government power so that there are fewer and less-powerful reasons to bribe some politician while also making it more risky for both parties.
If a government/politician has no powers that could tilt the scales favorably for monied interests, they'll find something else more productive to spend their money on.
If NYC for example had chosen to license taxis like many other cities do without the medallion system, that whole corrupt partnership between city officials and the few big cab companies, built around the medallion system, wouldn't exist.
Strat
The essence of capitalism is corruuption and cronyism.
Capitalism works, but these things go with the territory.
Except corruption & cronyism aren't symptoms of capitalism, they are human nature and that statement rings true for a number of other things in place of "capitalism" in that first sentence; "The essence of (mankind/big government/Progressivism) is corruption and cronyism".
Corruption and cronyism are the result of basic human nature, of which greed, avarice, and hunger for power come to mind as some of the major driving forces.
There's typically plenty of corruption and cronyism among hardcore communist and socialist countries as well. Usually much worse than anything the US has experienced so far.
Corruption and cronyism happen whenever a small group of people have power and there are not enough checks placed on their use of that power. Doesn't matter what type of government or economic/social systems are in place.
Strat
Private power/big corporations corrupting government. Small businesses do less/less-organized bribing.
You got it backwards.
Politicians convince us to give them (or they simply grab) some power, and then they work with their cronies outside government of all types, not just commercial interests, to "monetize" this new power of government to benefit themselves while keeping out competition and taking away freedom and wealth from everyone else. They also use their power to make sure even the honest businesses and officials must either "play ball" and go along/keep quiet about the corruption or face the consequences. Just like the mob.
The NYC politicians and bureaucrats took the power to regulate taxis, implemented the medallion system, and now have themselves a nice racket that any mob boss would envy, "all legal-like, see?".
You can't fix it by only attacking the side that doesn't have the power to write/enforce/adjudicate laws and has the monopoly on the use of lethal force. If the government is corrupt, just exactly how effective do you expect it will be (and has been so far) in bringing it's partners-in-crime (the corporations you refer too) to justice? You know, the guys they've been protecting and helping? It's like expecting the local sheriff in some tiny 1930's-era deep-south town to bust members of the local KKK for some violent acts when the sheriff is the leader.
We've been steadily giving the government more and more power and taxpayer wealth for over a half-century to cure these problems, and after each time we've allowed government more powers and taxes the problems have gotten worse.
The definition of insanity comes to mind...
Strat
You wouldn't happen to believe that global warming isn't man made or that we never landed on the moon, would you?
I believe the global climate is in a warming trend coming out of the last ice age, and that mankind may be responsible for some portion of the warming, but how much is up for debate, as is what can realistically be done about it that would actually have a enough effect to be worthwhile and not either destroy economies and/or cause widespread deaths, famines, etc, and/or be used as a means for governments to grab more power, wealth, and control. Not to mention some Terra-forming ideas put forth as "cures" could potentially result in ecological disaster.
Seeing as how I watched the moon landings live on TV and also worked for one of the contractors putting ceramic heat tiles on the shuttle at one point, yes, we landed on the moon.
Ok, kiddo. Whatever you say. Regulation bad. Unfettered capitalism good. That's brilliant.
Of course, because the only two choices are tyranny and anarchy.
You should be careful erecting those strawman arguments too, btw. One of them might catch fire.
Strat
These regulations are about preventing competition, lower fares, and about protecting the gravy train for, and lining the pockets of, the politically-connected cronies and the politicians while removing/limiting the choices people have, silly.
FTFY.
Strat
FTFY. Large companies own nearly all the medallions in NYC.
Yes, because government set it up that way intentionally with their medallion system.
Government doesn't want a bunch of independent operators and small companies. They're too hard to regulate/tax/control, and too difficult/time-consuming for government to obtain details of passengers' travels that they want to track, and they don't provide the kickbacks the medallion system generates.
Strat
I take it that stating something that may be politically controversial is a 'troll' now on slashdot. Rather than having the decency to respond to my post with some informed criticism, you choose to mod me "-1, disagree". Undo your mod, press reply, and tell me what, exactly, you disagree with. Because while I might be full of sarcasm, I don't think I've said anything a lot of people wouldn't agree with or find a factual basis for.
Welcome to the People's Democratic Republic of Slashdot.
This happens to me all the time. Just ignore it.
All it does is prove that your attackers have no credible rebuttals, and thus strengthens the credibility of your posts.
I browse /. at "-1" because those are usually the posts that actually make the most sense and contribute the most to the discussion, if they're not GNAA/goatse/Netcraft posts.
Slashdot moderation abuse has nearly succeeded in completely flipping the whole ranking system on it's head, where the better posts are at "-1" and the trolls/shills/useful idiots are at "+5". This is particularly true regarding political-topic submissions and discussion threads.
Strat
Another case of government corruption & cronyism gone full retard
FTFY
These regulations have nothing whatsoever to do with capitalism, except that they contribute to distorting, corrupting, abusing, impeding, and destroying capitalism.
Strat
So I'm actually somewhat lost on your point with HIV, I think it detracts from your other valid point about politicized science, tbh.
This.
I was reading along, thinking he was making some decent, logical arguments and then..."wut? HIV? wtf?"
An o/t bridge too far, and didn't really add much to his general arguments over other possible, and more on-topic, arguments he could easily have offered instead imho.
Just sayin'...
Strat
And a dumb fucking electorate gave the cowboy the chance.
If we need to start blaming someone, blame the American people. They are dumb as shit and they elect idiots who don't give a shit about the planet. Given a choice between cheap gas for the SUV or a future for their grandchildren, what do you think they will pick?
Yeah, we shouldn't give that stupid electorate a chance to interfere with what we say is right, and....
Heyyyy, wait a minute!!
Strat
[He broke the law (according to the court)]....aaaaand that's pretty much it.
So did Rosa Parks.
I'm just glad there aren't more like you for the sake of the Rosa Parks of the world.
Strat
Wrong. The TSA now has "VIPR" checkpoints on the highways.
Those VIPRs aren't any big deal.
I used to bull's-eye womp rats in my T-16 back home.
Strat
I know the Gauss Rifle has been a standard piece of weaponry in the Mechwarrior series from the BattelTech universe.
Still have fond memories of configuring MW4MERCS/VENG "pop-tart" "gauss-boat" sniper 'mechs (mech with jump-jets and loaded with all the gauss-rifles it can carry, maybe with an additional laser or two if room permits) that could suddenly pop up over the crest of a medium-distant hill/ridge and salvo-fire all weapons and ruin an unwary opposing mechwarrior's whole day.
Strat
So your argument is that someone somewhere sometime in the future may force you to use a safety feature against your will, so you'll happily sacrifice babies to stop that from happening.
Oh, please. Enough with the dramatic hyperbole. Nobody is guaranteed safety. To live in a free and open society is to accept risk. Things would be much safer for everyone if people were all kept locked down and controlled in nice, safe cells and housing units as well.
How much freedom must be sacrificed to "safety"? How much safety is enough? How little freedom (without privacy, and the ability to be anonymous in communications and travel, there cannot be freedom) must we be willing to tolerate in the name of "safety"?
I mean, c'mon man! You just uttered a classic /. meme and rights-violating argument; "Think of the children!" with your "sacrifice babies" bit. That tired old mantra is always trotted out by those who want to remove more rights and choices from people.
If you take as a given that the government as a whole and both major parties are corrupt, then why in $DEITY's name would anyone think giving them more power would be a good idea? It's been this way for quite a while now, we've been giving them more and more power to fix it. Strangely, it's always gotten even worse every single time.
But, I'm sure this time...
Strat
You aren't losing any liberty. And nowhere in the discussion of them has anyone mentioned requiring you sell your old car and buy an automatic one. You are the only one here championing the loss of liberty. You don't like the safe cars, so you want them banned, right?
To seriously believe that automatic cars won't become mandatory and a method for government tracking & control once they are partially implemented is self-delusion if one has any knowledge of history.
It's a compromise like politicians asking us; "Hey, can we put just a "little* of our dicks in your mouth? Why won't you even consider a compromise? It would benefit the majority. Why are you being so unreasonable?"
Maybe you don't mind it, but the rest of us do mind, thanks but no thanks.
Do not want: http://www.cracked.com/blogimages/southpark.jpg
Strat
I still play Homeworld in Wine. Works great!
I'm running FreeBSD 8.1. I wonder if Diaspora will run under WINE or if it will compile & run under the Linux compatibility layer, or both/neither.
Anyone else try it under FBSD yet?
Strat
So build your own fucking road and drive on it. But when you're on a public road - shove your 'responsibility' up your ass and use automatic system.
Because we for many prefer not to be driven into by an idiot who thinks that they can drive 'safely'.
No.
Go build your own fucking totalitarian country where you have no privacy and no freedom.
How dare you attempt to tell everyone they must all give up their privacy and freedom simply to ensure your safety, after so many have given their lives to give freedom to all of us. Trust me, you're not that important. It's not worth even a million just like you.
What hubris!
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
Strat
I know this is off topic, but from your post, I'm curious if you're an admirer of the late Ken Fishcher's amps/circuit designs. Some of my favorite designs.
Oh sure, Ken Fischer's Trainwreck amps are icons and works of art. Right on the edge of instability, just like a good fighter plane.
Howard Dumble is another icon and his Dumble amps are legendary works of art that fetch tens of thousands of dollars.
Strat
Wow.
40% Informative
30% Funny
30% Underrated
"Funny" I was going for.
"Underrated" I can understand and appreciate.
But "Informative"???
I'm not sure if I should be amused, amazed, impressed, or depressed here, or some combination of all four! LOL!
But, thank you ladies and germs! :)
Strat
From the article I read the laptop was owned by the agent not the FBI which raises a whole pant load of other questions.
No, it's actually quite simple.
The agent was in the process of collecting data, etc for the purpose of starting his own FBI.
With blackjack.
And hookers.
But the Secret Service got mad because blackjack & hookers were their gig, and so they hacked this FBI agent's computer and released the data to Anonymous.
The SS doesn't want to have their agents blow into town only to find all the blackjack and hookers are already booked solid by these new-FBI agents.
Strat