Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Wealth Distribution in the USA

1…1820222324

Comments

  • #572
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.
    The only way a company will not have a choice between HFCS and Sugar, is they will become unprofitable by choosing sugar - we know for starers, that this is not the case with the large food conglomerates.

    So there is no elimination of choice on the part of the companies - they are perfectly able to prioritize the customers health, over company profits.


  • #573
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #574
    clairefontaine
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,390 ✭✭✭clairefontaine


    KyussBishop wrote: »
    The only way a company will not have a choice between HFCS and Sugar, is they will become unprofitable by choosing sugar - we know for starers, that this is not the case with the large food conglomerates.

    So there is no elimination of choice on the part of the companies - they are perfectly able to prioritize the customers health, over company profits.

    Officially the HFCS is a debate.

    Meaning that I'd you outlaw that, you can pretty much outlaw anything, even sugar, because its bad for you.

    You could also say cereal companies are making unethical choices by putting sugar in them, some might even say wheat too.

    The FDA hasn't banned cigarettes and there is arsenic in those things and have one purpose,Mao kill you.

    Linked From the Ron Paul Facebook page

    http://www.farmfreshtoyou.com/


  • #575
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #576
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    What if it's a free market though that's harmful to a person's health. Or, more specifically, is harmful to society's health. Should cigarettes really be untaxed or unregulated? Regardless of whether you look at it from a state health or private insurance point of view smokers cost health services an awful lot of money. Now, I'm hoping here that you accept this, but let's say you don't. Suppose there exists a commodity that fulfils the following criteria:

    It can be cheaply produced and sold at the lowest market price possible.
    The commodity as whole though is harmful to society.

    Should the free market still be allowed to reign even if it's not in society's interest for it to do so?


  • Advertisement
  • #577
    K-9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,313 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    crockholm wrote: »
    Excellent contributions on both sides of this thread,and even at the risk of coming off as impartial-Permabear, you're one relentless SOB (and I mean that in a nice way). Please don't ever challenge anything I post,my brain would explode.

    Oh he's relentless all right, at claiming the same thing over and over, that nobody ever mentioned in the first place in the discussion.

    The 2 topics I avoid most in politics are Irish Republicanism and anything resembling libertarianism. Got to admire his stamina though!
    Jernal wrote: »
    Really?
    I thought the last few pages were rather terrible. They both seem to be speaking on completely different wavelengths.

    "You're saying government interference is bad!"
    "No I'm not, I'm saying you're playing down the role of corporate types."

    More government interference examples.
    More I'm not saying that. I'm saying you're absolving the industry of responsibility.

    Round and round we go.

    It's Jeremy Paxman level of debate. Raising an eyebrow at the political opponent, qualifies as searching political analysis.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • #578
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.
    I don't understand that then really - you promote Libertarianism, but then the template the Koch's set, who you are perfectly fine associating with, makes it look like they're more interested in power than any of the actual Libertarian ideology ("looks like" being an incredible understatement).

    The template they set, looks very cynical and non-Libertarian, which (given their dirty history) is why the movement seems (to me), to be a front for a corporate power grab over democracy, with the members who genuinely believe the Libertarian message, having been co-opted into supporting something very different (and ultimately, the end result in reality if it came about, likely more authoritarian than libertarian, as people engaging in the power-grab try to consolidate their power - back within the state).

    When I look at it, and read up on it (and don't turn a blind eye or disarm my skepticism to all the history), then that's as clear as day to me - and I don't get how it can not be to others.


    I find it amazing really, that anyone is willing to look past a dirty history like that (and I see it from a few posters) - I'd be curious about different posters self-disclosures, of why they don't care about the seriously negative parts of the history of people like the Koch's (and other funders), and the movement?

    Since they have such a corrupt history, it stands to reason that their entire message is corrupt/false as well. Do people not see that?
    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.
    Why would I really? I don't have any interest in US entrepreneurs. I only know about the Koch's, because I wanted to see some of the roots of what Libertarianism is really about, underneath the message portrayed online.


  • #579
    K-9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,313 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    There seems to be a large amount of FUD about sugar and HFCS here, yet little debate about the Koch brother lobbying regarding anti-climate change debate, and their backing of the Tea Party.

    That's a shame for somebody who is a heavy critic of lobbying.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • #580
    April O Neill
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,305 ✭✭✭April O Neill


    KyussBishop wrote: »
    I find it amazing really, that anyone is willing to look past a dirty history like that (and I see it from a few posters) - I'd be curious about different posters self-disclosures, of why they don't care about the seriously negative parts of the history of people like the Koch's (and other funders), and the movement?

    Since they have such a corrupt history, it stands to reason that their entire message is corrupt/false as well. Do people not see that?

    Well, once you personally *know* the people, bias tends to seep in...


  • #581
    clairefontaine
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,390 ✭✭✭clairefontaine


    Jernal wrote: »
    What if it's a free market though that's harmful to a person's health. Or, more specifically, is harmful to society's health. Should cigarettes really be untaxed or unregulated? Regardless of whether you look at it from a state health or private insurance point of view smokers cost health services an awful lot of money. Now, I'm hoping here that you accept this, but let's say you don't. Suppose there exists a commodity that fulfils the following criteria:

    It can be cheaply produced and sold at the lowest market price possible.
    The commodity as whole though is harmful to society.

    Should the free market still be allowed to reign even if it's not in society's interest for it to do so?

    Like what kind of product?

    Yes it should,otherwise everything would be banned, even booze. Moonshine is illegal because George Washington wanted to tax alcohol. That is the only reason.

    I do however support labelling as consumers have a right to know what they are consuming.

    As citizens ans consumers we do bear some responsibility over our destinies.


  • Advertisement
  • #582
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.
    I haven't supported any of that though - I agreed with your criticism of government, but then I'll be repeating that for the 3rd (4th?) time now so will not really do so further.

    I will say though, that while I'd still put some blame private companies way, the lions share would fall on government for promoting HFCS, and the private industry lobbying for that.


    As K9 said, the debate on the Koch's and the whole "being willing to look past peoples dirty history (a history which seems contrary to Libertarian ideals)" stuff, could be quite interesting.
    That kind of being willing to give benefit of the doubt, to some really bad stuff, seems to be something that I feel is unstated but hinted at a lot, from posters with similar views.


  • #583
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #584
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #585
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,313 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.
    An addiction researcher would disagree with you. It's their free choice to start, but once addicted choice is more weighted against them. How did so many start smoking in the past? Advertising, product placement and all the usual stuff attached to marketing commodities enticing the market to buy. In a libertarian free market that would be game ball. Indeed among some libertarian types any product/drug is OK and it's all down to individual choice. Imagine a world with morphiates promoted like tobacco with no government brakes on it.

    Actually you don't need to and you don't need to go far to see it in microcosm. Look at codeine based non prescription, over the counter drugs in Ireland. Solpadeine and the like. The market saw an opening and very soon pharmacies were pimping the product front of house. They were even promoting generic yellow pack versions to keep up with the demand. And there was a demand, a large one. You didn't see people queueing for boxes of aspirin, cos that ain't addictive. Ask any addiction therapist or support person in the field and they'll tell you that at one stage these products were outstripping heroin as far as usage was concerned. Did the market care? Did it fúck. Pharmacists seemed to turn a blind eye for the most part. What eventually restricted the sale? Government pressure(along with some in the pharmacy trade). In a libertarian free marketwe'd still have people lining up for their fix.

    Many worry about Artificial Intelligence. I worry far more about Organic Idiocy.



  • #586
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #587
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,313 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    That's assuming autonomy to generally make good choices is a given in people. It isn't. Put it another way, you would likely feel you make generally good choices, however if this was the 1950's the chances are extremely high you'd be a smoker to take one example. You're not today(I assume). Why? Not because of the market that's for sure. It was because of government intervention on the back of medical research, which in turn has changed public perception. So in effect you as a libertarian making the right choice are a product of a non libertarian "nanny state" environment that informed you how to do so.

    A society has to look at those that won't make the "right" choice. The ones that do are not the issue. The market won't do that. It's not in it's interest. That's fine if people want an "I'm all right Jack" two tiered anarchy, but it's not great for a wider society.

    Like I said before I'd judge any society by how they treat and deal with the weakest members of that society, not by how they treat and deal with the strongest.
    I appreciate that many Irish people want a nanny-state government that "protects society" by swaddling everyone and everything in endless rules and regulations. To a libertarian, that is to live as a rat in a cage, constantly being monitored, regulated, and controlled.
    And you don't think the market wouldn't do exactly the same thing? That's extremely naive.

    It already tries to. Take this very medium, the interweb. Facebook's business model is based on widespread monitoring of people and the choices they make. Google even moreso and they have stated that they want to take that further. So a few market led companies will know who you are, where you live, what you consume, who you vote for, who your friends are etc, even your genetic proclivity to disease all nicely packaged for the "free" market. And the highest bidder will control the "choices" you ultimately make, by pushing the "choices" they think you should make. No "big" government required. Indeed remove government regulation entirely and they'd go even further. The best form of control is giving people the impression they still have it.

    Many worry about Artificial Intelligence. I worry far more about Organic Idiocy.



  • #588
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #589
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    You seem to think that health is an individual phenomenon. It's anything but. If someone body ends up in A&E for whatever reason that drains the resources of that emergency center and also will affect others who require use of that service. Smokers, put themselves in a very high risk bracket for a plethora of issues. One example being that smoking deprives the heart of oxygen it should really have, thereby causing it work that little bit harder. Regardless of how big the market for cardiovascular disease were to grow are you suggesting it's right that the cost of others who use that service (a majority btw) should be so negatively impacted by that tiny minority who choose to smoke and end up being a massive resource drain on the system? Passive smoking can pose serious risks to some people. Some people who inhale smoke can retch within a few minutes, others go into full on vomit reflux mode. (Peanut allergies seem a better example though for that. In some work places and environments peanuts are sealed so that they don't post a health risk to others. You can't eat them in certain locations.)

    To use another, probably better example. Consider simple safety laws like forcing people to wear to protection gear. Don't get me wrong here, I'm not stating anything with an element of risk needs to be banned, what I'm saying is that the cost of an individuals freedom needs to be balanced with the cost of that freedom to society as a whole. More people without motor cycle helmets lead to more serious motorbike accidents. Greater drain on health resources. Longer traffic delays, emotional trauma of onlookers and other things that impact society in marginal ways but when added together over time make a significant impact. There needs to be a balance between individual freedoms and cost to society.


    Individual freedoms is a lovely idea but the thing is no matter what you say or do there's always going to be some impact on someone else's individual freedom - and in some cases the impact of one group of individuals is going to significantly affect the whole of society. I cannot currently see how the free market would accommodate that.

    I really do like the idea but like other similar concepts, I don't think you can actually have individual freedom of offence, or live and let live. All lovely ideas except one person's ideas or values are inevitably going to conflict with another's. Regardless of how you frame it, issues like smoking, pollution and other individualistic freedoms invariably have an impact on others. The free market idea you're proposing, or specifically in this case, the freedom of smoking is another one of those.


  • #590
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,313 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.
    That's fine and dandy as an intellectual whimsy(and emotive one) but the reality is a little different. Where does one draw this autonomy line philosophically and in practical terms? Oh the law would step in? Laws are regulations by another name and impinge on "personal autonomy" on a near daily basis. Drive a Ferrari at 120 mph where it's as safe as houses compared to a Toyota Starlet, but see how far you get before you're "stripped" of that choice.
    I disagree with your representation here. Through the 1950s and 1960s, the powerful tobacco industry spent bucket-loads of money on lobbying, questioned every piece of medical and scientific research that emerged, and successfully defeated or watered down numerous efforts at government regulation.
    Indeed, but note the boled bit. Imagine a scenario with no or very little government. Great for the tobacco industry as they wouldn't have had to spend a bean on questioning anything. Medical and scientific research would be curtailed in such a society too. Where would be the market led interest in proving a highly lucrative and addictive product was unsafe? When everything has a price, those who control the money control access. What scientist is gonna get funding and from where in such a market led society? Indeed as you point out smokers pay higher insurance and have more costly medical expenses, so stopping smoking across the board would lose money for the insurance companies and the medical companies. It would be advantageous for an completely unregulated market for people to take up smoking.
    Even the National Association of Broadcasters lobbied intensively against any advertising regulation that would limit their members' revenue from cigarette companies.
    You keep making my point for me. Remove government "interference" and the broadcasters wouldn't have to lobby for anything and they could keep pimping the Marlboro man and Joe Camel with no interference. Mom and pop genuine public-interest groups wouldn't stand a chance against the might of media in getting their story out. If all the media are sucking on the tit of the tobacco industry, who is gonna greenlight a story that proves the product kills you? Bye bye ad revenue. Cue many of their "experts" promoting the company line on the same media.
    Arguably the same goals could have been accomplished much faster if not for the cronyism in Congress.
    As I pointed out, how? Where would the market led impetus have come from?

    Take another area that affects everyone; food and food production. Take food labeling. Where did that come from? The food companies? Nope, government. Why did the EU have across the board regulation on labeling before the US and still has better labeling today? "oh well special interest lobby groups had/have more power". Great, but without the need for lobby groups special interest groups, the ones with the deepest pockets would have even less of a concern about self regulation. John and Jane Doe bringing class action suits and trying to get them that way? Yep, it would have some effect, but again those with the deepest pockets tend to have the upper hand in legal cases like that and without independent and well funded research to back their side they'd be screwed in court.
    Fortunately, I get to choose whether to sign up for Facebook and Google accounts, and when I do, I know the privacy trade-offs. I don't get to choose whether to be monitored by the NSA.
    Silly argument. For a few reasons. For a start as these companies become the market(and social interaction) more and more, one could chose to not buy into them, but that would ironically reduce your life choices in many areas. This will get more of an issue down the line too, when your online persona will be based on services like those and if you're not in you can't win. We saw similar with the rise of credit cards. There was a time when choosing to get one or not was a much easier choice, today they're almost a given in order to access products and services. A personal information "credit card" is going to have a much wider reaching effect. Even today I gather some companies are starting to screen potential employees FB accounts and general web presence. So if you say "well I don't have an account", more and more that will be looking like you're trying to hide something.

    Secondly the NSA is a separate argument. No one is suggesting governments can't be dicks, but that doesn't mean all forms of government are dicks and therefore we should throw the baby out with the bathwater.

    Many worry about Artificial Intelligence. I worry far more about Organic Idiocy.



  • #591
    clairefontaine
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,390 ✭✭✭clairefontaine


    Wibbs wrote: »
    An addiction researcher would disagree with you. It's their free choice to start, but once addicted choice is more weighted against them. How did so many start smoking in the past? Advertising, product placement and all the usual stuff attached to marketing commodities enticing the market to buy. In a libertarian free market that would be game ball. Indeed among some libertarian types any product/drug is OK and it's all down to individual choice. Imagine a world with morphiates promoted like tobacco with no government brakes on it.

    Actually you don't need to and you don't need to go far to see it in microcosm. Look at codeine based non prescription, over the counter drugs in Ireland. Solpadeine and the like. The market saw an opening and very soon pharmacies were pimping the product front of house. They were even promoting generic yellow pack versions to keep up with the demand. And there was a demand, a large one. You didn't see people queueing for boxes of aspirin, cos that ain't addictive. Ask any addiction therapist or support person in the field and they'll tell you that at one stage these products were outstripping heroin as far as usage was concerned. Did the market care? Did it fúck. Pharmacists seemed to turn a blind eye for the most part. What eventually restricted the sale? Government pressure(along with some in the pharmacy trade). In a libertarian free marketwe'd still have people lining up for their fix.

    Addiction is slavery, I would agree with you, and tobacco companies are evil for sure, but seriously, the government cannot save you here, it can't with crack or heroine and it can't with cigarettes.

    We are not a nation of subjects, we do have some autonomy.

    How is European labelling better? Curious.

    And as for your lasts post, choice always comes with a price, there is rarely a perfect choice. No no, no one forces you to use Facebook or gmail, many use neither. Seriously, people know what the drill is.


  • Advertisement
  • #592
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,313 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    Jernal wrote: »
    Individual freedoms is a lovely idea but the thing is no matter what you say or do there's always going to be some impact on someone else's individual freedom - and in some cases the impact of one group of individuals is going to significantly affect the whole of society. I cannot currently see how the free market would accommodate that.
    It couldn't. Not unless the bottom line was hit and there would be few cases where that would occur.

    Libertarianism is very much an "I'm alright Jack, I'm a winner" philosophy and it's very self serving to such Jacks and Janes. It's fine if you're Winner Jack, but it makes little or no attempt to deal with those who aren't, beyond a half arsed idea that a rising tide floats all boats, or charity will sort it out. It has quite the social Darwinism whiff to it. It also pushes general and emotive notions like "stripping citizens of personal autonomy", while avoiding specifics like the very plague. Naturally as when one gets into the specifics any hard and fast rule philosophy tends to fall apart. They do similar with the G word, government. Label it as baaad, throw the baby out with the bathwater, point out it's issues, while ignoring it's advantages.

    Many worry about Artificial Intelligence. I worry far more about Organic Idiocy.



  • #593
    K-9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,313 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Wibbs wrote: »
    Secondly the NSA is a separate argument. No one is suggesting governments can't be dicks, but that doesn't mean all forms of government are dicks and therefore we should throw the baby out with the bathwater.

    The inverse logic is that those of us showing examples of bad behaviour by companies must be anti-Capitalist and want some type of Communist or Socialist state. It's a tunnel vision way of looking at things.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • #594
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,313 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    clairefontaine wrote: »
    Addiction is slavery, I would agree with you, and tobacco companies are evil for sure, but seriously, the government cannot save you here, it can't with crack or heroine and it can't with cigarettes.
    Except it did, in the case of tobacco. Far fewer people smoke today compared to say the 1960's. How did that happen? The tobacco companies? Nope, it was independent research, often funded by government, that government decided was impacting on public health and promoted an anti tobacco message, even while tobacco lobbyists in places like the US were spending billions to stop them. Cut out government and it's highly likely we'd not even realise the dangers in tobacco in the first place. After all it was well known and proven that smoking was dangerous back in the 1950's. How long did it take for that info to really filter down?
    We are not a nation of subjects, we do have some autonomy.
    Of course we do, however we have also a responsibility to wider society.
    How is European labelling better? Curious.
    Well it's is and it isn't. Some food labeling in the US is better and easier to read, but it's not as tightly regulated as the EU kind. IIRC the requirements vary across states(or used to).
    No no, no one forces you to use Facebook or gmail, many use neither.
    That was my point. More and more you are and will be forced to. Look at how many sites insist on singing in with your google or FB account. They're aiming to be an internet "passport". They have stated this, it's no secret.
    Seriously, people know what the drill is.
    You'd be surprised how little people know. How many people put up daft, personally dodgy, even dangerous stuff on FB? Quite the number. Funny I've found younger people worse for this. Old farts like me who grew up pre web tend to be much more cautious. Those who grew up with the web as background noise tend to be less cautious. I've even seen it on Boards in my capacity as a mod and other mods will back this up. Many's the time you'd get a panicked message about some post or other that is coming back to haunt someone. People will put up personal details like, photos, deeply personal info, phone numbers and stuff like that, thinking they're talking to a couple of mates in their forum. A helluva lot of people don't even realise there's a drill, never mind know it.

    Many worry about Artificial Intelligence. I worry far more about Organic Idiocy.



  • #595
    clairefontaine
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,390 ✭✭✭clairefontaine


    Wibbs wrote: »
    Except it did, in the case of tobacco. Far fewer people smoke today compared to say the 1960's. How did that happen? The tobacco companies? Nope, it was independent research, often funded by government, that government decided was impacting on public health and promoted an anti tobacco message, even while tobacco lobbyists in places like the US were spending billions to stop them. Cut out government and it's highly likely we'd not even realise the dangers in tobacco in the first place. After all it was well known and proven that smoking was dangerous back in the 1950's. How long did it take for that info to really filter down?

    Of course we do, however we have also a responsibility to wider society.

    Well it's is and it isn't. Some food labeling in the US is better and easier to read, but it's not as tightly regulated as the EU kind. IIRC the requirements vary across states(or used to).

    That was my point. More and more you are and will be forced to. Look at how many sites insist on singing in with your google or FB account. They're aiming to be an internet "passport". They have stated this, it's no secret.
    You'd be surprised how little people know. How many people put up daft, personally dodgy, even dangerous stuff on FB? Quite the number. Funny I've found younger people worse for this. Old farts like me who grew up pre web tend to be much more cautious. Those who grew up with the web as background noise tend to be less cautious. I've even seen it on Boards in my capacity as a mod and other mods will back this up. Many's the time you'd get a panicked message about some post or other that is coming back to haunt someone. People will put up personal details like, photos, deeply personal info, phone numbers and stuff like that, thinking they're talking to a couple of mates in their forum. A helluva lot of people don't even realise there's a drill, never mind know it.

    Seriously Wibbs I have so sympathy for noobs who put up lots of personal info on Facebook while also complaining about privacy. I domhoweve have sympathy for parents who will get convicted for their children's behaviour on Facebook while Facebook loosens up the rules for teens. That's a real rock and a hard place.

    Yeah signing in with google or Facebook, simple, don't do it. I don't.

    Also I'm or sure libertarianism says cut out the governmen altogether, more like minimise it.

    I can't say I'm a fan of alot of EU legislation. I hadn't noticed the labelling difference, is be curious to know. I did read the zIriah farmers journal and seriously do wonder if you are right about that, considering what I read in there.

    You wouldn't have the web in the fist place of it weren't for the US military. I wonder if it would have been inveted eventually by a private citizen.

    It comes down to a very different mindset. What Europeans do, like social welfare states, and French rules like you can't work more than 40 ours a week, even if you want to, or all the social regulation up in Sweawn, could never ever work in the US. It only works where there is kinship, and kinship is not in the American consciousness, not woven into its history.


  • #596
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.
    Except I did not say it begins or ends with the Koch's; if however, you just type into Google "biggest libertarian donors", guess what comes up first?

    As for a good place to read about the history of the Libertarian movement, I'd pick something that would be a little more critical/skeptical, than a book written by the senior editor of the Reason magazine, which is itself Koch funded.
    Permabear wrote: »
    Let's try this logic out in another form: "Heidegger was a Nazi sympathizer, therefore his philosophy is false and corrupt." Hmmm. No, I don't think so.
    It is not that people agree with the Libertarian message the Koch's support that lends discredit, it is that they are willing to look past the actions of the Koch's, and accept support from them.

    In my earlier post, I provided a link listing various activities the Koch's supported, of engaging in "fraud, bribery, [and] outright theft", "Directly stealing oil", "Directly promoting stealing as part of business", being one of the "top 10 air polluters" in the US, "promoting FUD about climate change", of (in US elections) "Coercing employees into voting a particular way, with threats", "Blocking any/all climate change political reforms" (with all of this barely scratching the surface).
    Permabear wrote: »
    Ah, right. You only have an interest in "right-wing" entrepreneurs who fund causes that you find objectionable. Soros only directs his billions into left-wing causes, so you know nothing about him, even though he gives more than 50 times what the Kochs do to universities.
    If I criticize someone who is economically to the right, I don't need to 'balance out' that by criticizing someone on the left too - suggesting so, is whataboutery.
    If I criticize the US for their foreign policy, I do not need to also criticize China/Russia too - and if I do not, that does not mean I support China/Russia.
    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.
    Except, judging by the actions of the movements backers, this is not what the modern Libertarian movement is about anymore - to find out what they are really about, you need to examine the actions of the people supporting the movement, and their donors.
    You are pointing to their message, what is important are their actions - it seems credible for many supporters, that the message is the facade used to try and justify their actions.

    What the Koch's represent, through their actions, is what I believe the Libertarian movement truly represents - and the message they present, is not representative of their actions - so it stands to reason, that what they really want is very different (and altogether a lot more corrupt) than what their message promotes.


  • #597
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.
    We could argue about it, sure, but the point is: There is no evidence that the free-market can self-regulate like that, and a lot of past evidence showing that the push to deregulation does not lead to adequate self-regulation in a lot of markets.

    The whole Libertarian argument, on most topics, whittles down to the assertion that markets can self-regulate adequately: I agree that where this works, it should be done, but for so many markets it has a history of not working, hence why government regulations come about in the first place.

    I understand people believe in that ideal, but it's got a terrible history when being enacted in-practice.


  • #598
    Karl Stein
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,689 ✭✭✭Karl Stein


    Carlos Roca wrote: »
    We need a word to underscore the point at which debates like this depart from reality and turn into 'libertarian' circle-jerks.

    Yep. I'm quoting myself.


  • #599
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,313 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    clairefontaine wrote: »
    Seriously Wibbs I have so sympathy for noobs who put up lots of personal info on Facebook while also complaining about privacy.
    Forget about those doing that and complaining about privacy. What about those who don't realise how deep the old rabbit hole goes? There is a url I have somewhere about the place(I'm sure some boffins hereabouts will know the one I speak of) where you enter your name and it spits back a brief rundown on personal info available. Peopple are usually shocked by how much is out there and this goes for non dribbling gobshítes too. Even techie people can be taken aback. And this is today. Look at how different the web was a decade ago. Fast forward another decade...
    I domhoweve have sympathy for parents who will get convicted for their children's behaviour on Facebook while Facebook loosens up the rules for teens. That's a real rock and a hard place.
    Yep and unless they get sued effectively or legislation kicks in then they won't change that.
    Yeah signing in with google or Facebook, simple, don't do it. I don't.
    That was my point. You can choose to still do that, but day by day, more and more sites will insist upon it(or somthing similar). Two years ago you never saw that stuff, today it's pretty common. I click a lot of links OK, but I'd say at least three times a week I get the "sign in with...".
    Also I'm or sure libertarianism says cut out the governmen altogether, more like minimise it.
    Sure, but they're both variable and vague as far as by how much goes. Your business types are usually clear enough, marketise pretty much everything and deregulate the means of doing business. Well of course, as it would suit them, but that's a very narrow view and it's anyones guess how such a "free for all" run by and for the bottom line of the markets would affect wider society.
    I can't say I'm a fan of alot of EU legislation.
    Generally it's been a bonus more than it detracts.
    You wouldn't have the web in the fist place of it weren't for the US military. I wonder if it would have been inveted eventually by a private citizen.
    Yes we would and it was. The vast majority of what became the internet was invented by private citizens.
    It comes down to a very different mindset. What Europeans do, like social welfare states, and French rules like you can't work more than 40 ours a week, even if you want to, or all the social regulation up in Sweawn, could never ever work in the US. It only works where there is kinship, and kinship is not in the American consciousness, not woven into its history.
    Maybe. There does seem to be more of the individual is all, though mixed with a fair bit of group think too. I don't think the differences are that large. There would in general be more of an attitude of work to live rather than live to work in European cultures again in general. Europe is a very wide set of cultures. It's easier(though difficult) to define an "American" than it is to define a "European".

    Many worry about Artificial Intelligence. I worry far more about Organic Idiocy.



  • #600
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Advertisement
  • #601
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


Advertisement