Political Litmus Test
-
- You asked.
- You never like my links because raisins.
- You won't do it because you know you'll lose.
-
Thanks, dumbass, for your sarcastic link to something that DID NOT ADDRESS MY EXAMPLE AT ALL. If you want to call someone (for example) an economic ignoramus, it helps your argument not to argue a completely different point.
Would you care to try again, with the guy in North Carolina who complained about a stoplight not being put in, after having gathered up a bunch of data on that intersection and studies done on similar ones, only to have some State rep accuse him of practicing engineering without a license?
-
What's stopping anyone from starting their own credit card and payment and money transfer network? If there's an abusive monopoly, there's a massive incentive for providing a non-abusive alternative, anyone could make shitloads of money on that.
Shit, if the big bad bank owns all the money... what's stopping anyone else from just using another token to trade? Or from reverting to a barter system? I mean, it's inconvenient, but if the monopoly is abused enough, anything goes. And if people don't use another token, or revert to barter, if they continue to use the big bad bank, that simply means they're happy enough with it. You might not be, but most people apparently are. It's the purest form of democracy, really - everyone votes with their own wallet.
-
The difference is that a video of one muslim behaving poorly doesn't reflect on all muslims. A video of one Donald Trump behaving poorly does reflect on all Donald Trumps because there is, mercifully, only one. Likewise, a video of all of his supporters in a given area reflects upon those supporters, and I have yet to see one which does not depict violence and/or hatred on their part.
-
The way I understand it, it's about protecting negatively defined rights (e.g. nobody can prevent you from obtaining healthcare if you find someone willing to provide it to you), but not positively defined rights (someone is forced to provide healthcare to you). Because you can't always enforce the latter without taking away someone's freedom.
The problem is the Tyranny of Small Decisions. If the government doesn't prevent businesses from discriminating based on race, then it becomes possible, or even likely, that enough businesses will discriminate that it reduces the available market for members of that race to do business. In extreme cases, it might be completely unfeasible for members of that race to purchase certain goods, since no business will be willing to sell to them. In order to increase the freedom of certain human beings, the government places restrictions on businesses.
-
Thanks, dumbass, for your sarcastic link to something that DID NOT ADDRESS MY EXAMPLE AT ALL. If you want to call someone (for example) an economic ignoramus, it helps your argument not to argue a completely different point.
Your example is just an example of a barrier to entry. It is not the only example of a barrier to entry.
Your question was who enforces barriers to entry? Sometimes it is the government (and that's called rent-seeking). But it is not always the government, nor is it even typically the government.
So it is the monopoly who typically enforces barriers to entry.
-
What's stopping anyone from starting their own credit card and payment and money transfer network? If there's an abusive monopoly, there's a massive incentive for providing a non-abusive alternative, anyone could make shitloads of money on that.
Who is going to loan you the billion dollars you need? Is it the bank? I don't think they'd be interested.
The monopoly just has to make any incumbent business unprofitable.
-
How about a million dissatisfied customers of the big bad bank?
-
Since apparently google is hard, here you go.
Donald Trump supporters shout racial slurs, Nazi salute at protester in Las Vegas rally: ‘It felt like a mob’
All heil broke loose. A Donald Trump rally in Las Vegas Monday night descended into more chaos than usual, with a protester getting thrown out as supporters shouted deadly threats, racial slurs and…
-
In a regulated market, any random person can't start their own bank, because of "consumer protection" and shit. Anyone who tries ends up with massive fines and/or jailtime, because what if they turned out to be bad? Meanwhile, the big bank can just grease some legislator pockets and continue to enjoy its state-enforced monopoly, for safety. And when it finally implodes it'll just get bailed out with more money taken from its dissatisfied forced customers.
Yep. Modern leftists seem to be big time corporatists. This isn't really surprising, since having a few big partners is easier to manage than having to herd lots of cats. The corporations support the politicians and regulators because they can afford to deal with the resulting friction which has the great benefit of keeping competitors out.
Any libertarian definition that excludes this is also very limiting.
-
Hey that's great. Go ahead an organize them. Where are you going to keep the billion dollars? Under your mattress? I don't think the monopoly bank is interested in your account.
-
Agreed. The libertarian view allows people to be charitable with both time and money for causes they believe in. I'm charitable when I can be, for things I deem worthy. Forced charity diverts those resources towards places I have no control over, for causes I may strongly disagree with, with distributors and managers I know nothing about, and makes it much more difficult for me to participate, reducing my freedom in this area.
Once again, you're essentially restricting the discussion to wealth (remember, time is money) and economic issues (which is what separates "left" and "right" on the Political Compass). There are plenty of issues that left-wing libertarians will agree with "true" libertarians about, such as government control of speech, government spying on citizens, or government restrictions on personal behavior (e.g. sex, drugs, and rock 'n roll).
-
Yes, and the people who claim we're under siege by Muslims claim that they're acting under orders of their imams, and I can find you a video of "all Muslims in a given area" behaving in a way that is despicable.
The sentence about you only seeing a certain kind of videos just shows you take all your information from extremely biased media and that you're not much of a critical thinker. Neither of which probably won't surprise many people around here.
Here's a video of Trump supporters being peaceful: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5l1rOF9BsQ
I mean, I didn't watch the whole thing, I just randomly clicked on a couple spots on the seekbar but I couldn't find any lynchings. You're welcome to prove me wrong, though.
-
Likewise, a video of all of his supporters in a given area reflects upon those supporters, and I have yet to see one which does not depict violence and/or hatred on their part.
LOL. So then you also admit that all anti-Trump people are violent haters? I mean...that's what I keep seeing about those guys.
-
Yep. Modern leftists seem to be big time corporatists.
As opposed to those right-wing bastions of freedom in the Republican Party1?
1 And most of the Democratic Party, which has been right of center for a while now.
-
As opposed to those right-wing bastions of freedom in the Republican Party1?
Yes, they are generally less corporatist than the Democrats.
-
So basically as expected. These questions are weird though.
-
I heard that argument (I think) last year when the whole gay wedding vs. Christian bakery owners thing was going down. There was some kind of anti-discrimination law being passed in reaction to it, IIRC. I remember some people saying that law is stupid and that anyone should have the right to refuse service to anyone, while others were using this argument, saying that if the law wasn't passed, it would open floodgates to discrimination. (Apologies if I got anything wrong, it's been some time. I think I got the gist of it, though).
I remember someone in my company starting a virtue signaling contest on a company-wide mailing list, stating how if the state isn't passed we should refuse to do business with that state, and how we should never send anyone in there because it would become a hotspot of discrimination with gays dying in the streets because hospitals would refuse them access to health care. I'm serious, that's how that thread started, and it only got stupider from there.
Anyway, here's my point: imagine my surprise when I finally learned that something like 18 US states explicitly allow this kind of discrimination, and have for ever, and there is not a single recorded case of anyone actually being harmed any more than being told to shop elsewhere. No great gay holocaust, nothing like that. Funny how that works, isn't it?
Because if one business refuses service to a certain group, they're only hurting themselves, and they're increasing the incentive for every other business to provide this service. More customers, more money. Again, the only way a specific group could be actually harmed would be if the government started discriminating against them, because you can go to a different bakery, but it's much more difficult to change governments.
-
Not just modern. Corporatism seems to be an integral part of leftism.
I mean, when communists took over, in any country (AFAIK), they didn't ban big bad corporations that were exploiting the common man. No, they banned small businesses. Giant corporations were all that was left. Need groceries? Go to the corporate store. Need a car? Buy it from the state car corporation. Need something built? You get the idea.
-
Likewise, a video of all of his supporters in a given area reflects upon those supporters, and I have yet to see one which does not depict violence and/or hatred on their part.
Do you know each of them personally? Do you keep a record of all three hundred million Americans and their voting preferences so you can tell for sure that you haven't missed any of Trump supporters in your statistics? No? Then fuck off with your bullshit "all of his supporters".
-
The point is, again, that the dissatisfied people can do whatever the hell they want. They can keep it under a mattress, they can invest it and buy or found another business to generate a steady cash flow while they build the banking infrastructure, they can sacrifice a goat, smear themselves with its blood and dance around a bonfire to the tune of David Hassellhoff's Hooked on a Feeling. It's their money, their problem. Is it going to be difficult? Quite likely, yes, but not impossible - unlike in a strongly regulated marked where all they can do is sit on their asses and wait for their elected, inevitably corrupt representatives to fix their problems.
-
Since apparently google is hard, here you go.
<video player with no seek bar>
I hate you. I mean, I hate you even more than before.Also. Congratulations. You found one fucktard being beaten up by several other fucktards, and some more fucktards rambling random syllables overheard during their history classes the day before. Totally proves that Trump is literally Hitler! As if it was his fault that he has fucktard supporters!
-
Totally proves that Trump is literally Hitler! As if it was his fault that he has fucktard supporters!
Yeah. Hell, Bernie Sanders has @Fox for a supporter.
-
Is this thread Guacamole 2.0? I don't want to shit it up with
too soon.
-
Too late.
-
Totally proves that Trump is literally Hitler! As if it was his fault that he has fucktard supporters!
It happens at just about every rally. And Trump actively encourages it personally.
-
rig it
Better?
Edit: Moved the dot out of bounds. Here's a nice, balanced, perfect one:
Filed under: Still can't tell, proxy still blocks it, but I think it should work right
-
I mean...that's what I keep seeing about those guys.
And your sample size is, what, a dozen people at most? Mine is in the thousands.
-
It happens at just about every rally.
Exactly. Every rally. Not just Trump's....I mean, it surely would happen on rallies of other candidates, except that those shitstorms are started by provocation (or just attendance, depending on how you see it) of anti-Trumpers on Trump rallies, and the other candidates don't get many (any?) anti-attendees on their own rallies. So, we don't have enough data points to draw conclusion about how Trump supporters compare to supporters of other candidates. Maybe except for the fact that Trump supporters don't disrupt other candidates' rallies. If you ask me, it's rather nice of them.
And Trump actively encourages it personally.
Now you're just lying. Or you have very
definition of "encourage". Last I checked, buying iPhone wasn't considered encouraging child slave labor.
-
And your sample size is, what, a dozen people at most? Mine is in the thousands.
Your still wrong.
Now you're just lying. Or you have very
definition of "encourage".There was a time where he said he'd like to punch one of the guys in the nose. But that was a couple weeks ago or something and he's definitely toned it down since then from what I've heard and seen.
But that's OK, @Fox can excuse anything anyone else does because of what he saw some Trump supporter on youtube doing.
-
Ended up a smidge right of center pretty far down libertarian, which surprised the fuck out of me as I generally think of myself as socially liberal. But I guess things like not assuming corporations are necessarily evil or that they should be acting in their economic interests skewed me.
Also this went to different people talking passed each other after not long so prolly going to mute.
-
no
-
I heard that argument (I think) last year when the whole gay wedding vs. Christian bakery owners thing was going down. There was some kind of anti-discrimination law being passed in reaction to it, IIRC. I remember some people saying that law is stupid and that anyone should have the right to refuse service to anyone, while others were using this argument, saying that if the law wasn't passed, it would open floodgates to discrimination.
I'm of the opinion that when it comes to your private life, the state should allow consenting adults to do whatever they want as long as they don't cause harm to others. You don't want to invite gay people to your house, fine. However, when you ask the state to give you benefits, you should be forced to behave in a sense as a public service, including losing the right to discriminate on a number of areas (stuff like not serving people if they're not dressed to a given standard is fine, discriminating on the basis of religion or race, or sexual orientation isn't).
And businesses ask the government for a considerable amount of protections. First and foremost, every company is a shield against being personally sued. If someone slips in the bakery and breaks their back, the bakery might get sued, but the actual owner is basically safe under the legal fiction that the bakery is an entity separate from the owner. So he might lose his company, but he can't lose his house. Same when a company goes bankrupt. There are many other advantages that a person receives when they incorporate, mostly based on the idea that these measures encourage entrepreneurship, which is overall a social good despite the limitations it places on others to go after the physical person behind the legal entity.
In exchange, it makes sense for the legal entity to be forced to behave to a certain standard, such as not allowing the owner's prejudices to shine through. If you are going to be protected from society by this legal fiction, society should be protected from you by it as well. This idea is supported by certain laws, where if you don't keep sufficient distance between your assets and your company's assets, you might be personally liable when someone goes after the company.
I agree that often, state interference is the cause of some monopolies. However, the tendency in unregulated markets is for monopolies to arise simply by virtue that success creates more opportunities for success. A company that has higher profits can use those higher profits to secure more profitable deals and drive down its own costs, leading to a positive feedback loop that allows it to dominate the market. That's why when companies want to merge, the state may intervene and declare that they're not allowed to. Merging and consolidating is the natural tendency in a system that rewards consolidation and provides more power to consolidate.
-
I see this quiz hasn't gotten any less confusing since the last time I took it. I didn't put too much thought into the questions, so I wouldn't put too much weight on the results either.
-
However, when you ask the state to give you benefits
Sorry I'm only quoting this part, but I've had 8 pretty strong Polish beers and I think that's the major point we disagree on.
I think it's natural that businesses ask the state to give them benefits. Any business' main purpose is to make money, and bribing (lobbying) the government (a specific politician) is an exceedingly easy way to get that - but again, that's only possible in a regulated market. In a place with a free market, the government's response to a company asking for favors should be "lol no" - because government giving support to a company would mean the end of the free market.
-
But just the existence of companies is the state giving a person a benefit at the cost of limiting the freedom of others. For instance, if I lend your company money and your company goes under, I can't ask for your house even if you were personally responsible for the company going under (through poor management decisions and bad luck, not fraud or other criminal activity). You can't separate "free markets" from state regulation because state regulation is what allows a free market to exist. Without state regulation, a free market is one where I can punch you to take your stuff.
The very concept of ownership, and what things can be owned, is regulated by the state in the first place. Where slavery is legal, a person can be owned. Where slavery isn't legal, people can't be owned. How much ownership over things like ideas is allowed is defined by intelectual property laws.
So then arguing over what a "free market" is comes down to a matter of where you want to draw the line on state regulation. Big companies tend to want to draw the line where they get all the benefits of state regulation and none of the responsibilities. Leftists tend to want to have as much as possible regulated. I want only enough regulation for competition to thrive. Going too much in either direction will result in monopolies, either encouraged by the state or by rules that favor the companies and place no limits on them.
-
But just the existence of companies is the state giving a person a benefit at the cost of limiting the freedom of others. For instance, if I lend your company money and your company goes under, I can't ask for your house even if you were personally responsible for the company going under (through poor management decisions and bad luck, not fraud or other criminal activity).
Sure, that's how it works today, in most countries. But does it have to work that way? How about, if you lend money to a company, you sign a contract that states what constitutes a breach of said contract and what either party can (or has to) do in case the breach happens? And the government's job would be only to enforce that, but not to regulate what the actual contract says?
The very concept of ownership, and what things can be owned, is regulated by the state in the first place. Where slavery is legal, a person can be owned. Where slavery isn't legal, people can't be owned.
Yeah, and what (or who) is "ownable" comes from consensus, in any type of market. Except, with a free market, if most people decide that owning something, or someone, is bad - they just stop owning it/them, and the problem fixes itself. If they feel strongly against someone else owning something or someone, they can put pressure on that party and make them stop owning that or them. But in a regulated market, all they can do is - yet again - sit on their asses and hope that their elected representatives decide to fix their problems, and that they don't get bribed, which is a massive weak spot.
So then arguing over what a "free market" is comes down to a matter of where you want to draw the line on state regulation.
Of course, everything's a matter of balance. The great thing about a free market is that anyone can draw their own line. If you want a completely unregulated environment, you can get it; if you want your food to be thoroughly tested before you're allowed to consume it, hire a company that will do that for you. I'm only arguing that everyone should be allowed to pick their own way to do things - anyone can impose additional regulations upon themselves, but the "baseline" should be as little regulation as possible.
I mean, it's kinda like arguments about temperature in offices. (The place I work at just had some major drama about that; it's the stupidest thing ever.) People who need a low temperature can't keep undressing forever, but people who like the place to be warm can put on more clothes. Market regulation seems remarkably similar to drunk me.
-
How the hell does "do you think abstract art is art" reflect on one's political compass?
By my experience, many people regard abstract art as a useless, non-artistic waste of time. The question measures your focus on the concrete, which I think is a fundamental of conservatism.
No, governments create barriers to entry, exactly like I said. In my country, if you want to start a bank, you need just above 41 million dollars (1 billion CZK). Nobody has that kind of cash.
And yes, monopolies can drive down prices: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Oil - It might be rare, sure, but the point is that in a free market, if the monopoly doesn't satisfy you, you can do something about it. The more regulated the market is, the more difficult that is to do - so you're depending on your glorious leaders to fix your problems, and I think we can all see how that works.
I can't agree with that. I would argue the barriers are always there. Where there's very little government, the barriers become violent. The intermediaries who drop by your house to make it clear they know where your family lives. The man who burns your business down in the middle of the night.
I won't argue that governments create barriers, but I would add that most of those barriers are encouraged by the incumbent businesses, which use the government as their intermediary.
Take Uber. Right now, most of the barriers are by government, but it is crystal clear that those barriers are imposed at the behest of the incumbent cab companies, which don't want the competition. In a more unregulated environment, then someone would be shooting at Uber drivers from overpasses.
This is not a guess: we've seen the same activity between, for example, unions and scabs. Between trucking companies. In the past, between ranchers. Read up on People's Grocery and weigh the probable contribution by competitor William Barrett for a graphic example.
The problem isn't government--or its lack. The problem is incumbent sense of entitlement.
-
Ok I am close to you, only little bit to the right :--) tangent to the center, but still left
-
You have gone on and fucking on with your authoritarian bullshit.Actually most of that has been projection from the usual gang of idiots. @Fox has been consistently vociferous in opposition to assorted kinds of ill-thought-through speech from members of this forum, but the idea that he wants people locked up for it comes from his critics, who have now repeated it so often that they show every sign of having come to believe it.
-
I specifically avoided saying money. It's not about money, it's about means. It doesn't matter if the means are represented by bank notes or live cows.
But anyway, the point is that if I understand libertarianism correctly, the point isn't "Am I willing to give something away to help someone away?", but "Am I going to force others to give something away?". You can be a libertarian and happily contribute a half of everything you make to charity, but you can't be a libertarian if you're forcing others to do that. (And by forcing I mean actually forcing, as in with violence or threat of violence, not by not talking to them if they don't.)
You can be a libertarian and treat the concept of private property with respect, but you can't be a libertarian if you're forcing others to do that. (And by forcing I mean actually forcing, as in with violence or threat of violence, not by not talking to them if they don't.)
Now, obviously that statement is going to strike most libertarians as nonsensical. But why should private property be treated as more sacred than taxation? Both are fundamentally necessary to enable civilization, and both are only feasible if ultimately backed by socially sanctioned violence.
-
Yeah, that's what I've seen too. Perhaps (OK, not perhaps...) Fox is too vocal, but a lot of the authoritarian stuff seems to be straight from the gang that go after him. It would be nice if these discussions could be less emotionally charged (clearly Fox has a reason for his behavior - probably a very close-to-home reason)
Of course, these kind of topics lend themselves to those kinds of reactions, which is why I try to stay clear of them as much as possible (because honestly, arguing with people I otherwise respect such as @polygeekery, @boomzilla and others makes me less than happy).
Honestly, I'm only even responding here because I find Trump to be scary. Extremely scary. I come from a military background, and some of his comments (namely stuff like "I'm a great leader" and "I'll make them listen") are truly disturbing to come from someone that could be the commander in chief of the US Military. I normally don't think a President can have that much of an effect, especially without a Congress that agrees, but the things he is threatening to do, and the way he acts on the campaign, are not fit for a head of state, especially not the head of state of a superpower like the USA. Granted, this may be just rabble-rousing to get votes for the campaign, but honestly... I don't want to even think about taking that risk.
-
I'm also sure I'll regret that post tomorrow after reading all the responses to it. But whatever
-
I've had 8 pretty strong Polish beers and I think that's the major point we disagree on.
I wouldn't disagree with you on that. Polish beers can be strong, especially compared to the Czech ones (especially to every desitka).
What exactly did you have?
-
arguing with people I otherwise respect such as @polygeekery, @boomzilla and others makes me less than happy
That one is easy. Just stop respecting them.
-
The problem isn't government--or its lack. The problem is incumbent sense of entitlement.
And "incumbent sense of entitlement" is pretty much the definition of conservatism, whose overriding priority is to keep the levers of power firmly in the hands of those who already control them.
-
No, it's pretty much all minorities. Women
Ok, you know what, no. I wanted to let this go, but no. Women are 50-51% of the fucking population. Saying that they are minority either means you don't know what the fuck you're talking about, or you think women are inferior to the point where they need to vastly outnumber men to be equal to them.
Saying women are a minority is either stupid or sexist. Probably both.
African-Americans, Mexican-Americans
Ugh. This is not directed at @Fox specificaly, I just want to point out I hate these designations, especially when someone refers to a black European as "African-American". Really, guys, really? Ok, pet peeve addressed, moving on.
GLBTQ people
Is this the new ordering of the letters? Is LGBT(Q) still valid? Asking for a friend.
Muslims, and Jews
I can believe the former, but is anti-semitism really a thing still?
the idea that he wants people locked up for it comes from his critics
I based my buttumption from a limited data set where the intent seemed to be to limit the freedom of speech on the basis of it being offensive, where we disagreed. I didn't read the whole of that 10k post threadnaught so if I extrapolated wrongly, fair enough, my fuckup.
-
Is this the new ordering of the letters? Is LGBT(Q) still valid? Asking for a friend.
He's gay, so he puts his group in front.
L is more commonly in front, though.
-
Being born to rich parents.
-
Ok, firstly, I think you're trying to mean integer overflow. Buffer overruns are a different thing. Secondly,
Perfect.
On 09/11/15 09:06, B wrote:
Bio for Buddy:As one of our developers, Buddy helps make sure we continue to deliver the best in software. Specializing in back-end server code, Buddy helps make sure our software integrates with your ecosystem. When he's not coding, Buddy can be found with his family, playing games, or enjoying the indie music culture.
How's that?
-BOn Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 8:59 AM, Buddy wrote:
Buddy
Role: Back-end developer- Integration specialist
- Object oriented
- No respect for authority
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Photoshoot + bio
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 15:52:29 +1300
From: Y To: Whole Team
Hey guys,Along with the photoshoot this Friday, please write your mini biography and send it to your manager. To make it easier, please write it as a list of bullet points. For example:
Y
Role: Front-end developer- Coffee
- Game of Thrones & Fargo fan
- Lover of ukulele-based death metal
- Keen traveler
Let me know if you have questions.
Regards,
Y
WebIf someone that worked for you told you they didnt respect your authority you would fire them, wouldn't you, Hitler?
The Political Compass
