The Political Thread

[Rilla]

So, here is what's gonna happen. I don't care if y'all discuss politics, but nothing changes from here to discord or discord to here. Don't take personal shots. I know politics get real heated like, but if y'all can't keep civil, I'll have to drop the hammer. Do not make me need to do that. A

[Pepperm1nts]

---

[SleepingSilence]

Try to like-only separate full sentences...that was a little eye straining parse through. -.-

Considering everything, a preemptive apology feels out of place. But I genuinely tried to use as minimal snark as possible. <.<'

Healthcare is debatable, but the belief that public education is a bad thing is ridiculous.

@Pepperm1nts

Not quite what I said. I said the education system isn't a free-market and it's not doing well.

Are you really going to disagree that public education is doing awfully in America? (Or at the very least, is poor compared to how much we already spend on it.)

Aight, let's just take away people's social security, then. No one will complain.

@Pepperm1nts

Remove that tax, and most of them in general, and let people save/invest the money themselves. I think you'd be surprised how many people would be better off...

Are you sitting down right now?

Tax the rich.

@Pepperm1nts

Neat. Whose 'The Rich'?

Dawg, I've given you examples of exactly what it is I mean multiple times. I've repeated myself so many times that I was honestly becoming self-conscious and beginning to wonder if maybe I was repeating myself too much.

I have explained what it is and what is isn't, multiple times.

Anything political and economic is debatable. As for refutable... well, you've yet to refute anything soo...

@Pepperm1nts

You have literally not done that. I want you/or something else providing actual numbers/and a list of what you consider 'basic items you need to live with comfortable and dignity'. Because we're clearly not talking about food, water, shelter, emergency healthcare. Because you made the distinction that is can't just be 'barely getting by' so you must have money left over, after you can afford all of those things.

You argued the phone was essential, I literally refuted that, it is not needed for survival. Do I -need- a laundry list of evidence that a man can live without Snapchat?

Uh, no. This would be a set minimum wage, essentially.

Maybe, sure. What's the problem? A living wage would be different in the UK, because living standards are different country to country. In the US, we can calculate what an appropriate living wage is state-by-state.

@Pepperm1nts

Just for starters, No, it won't possibly be like a 'minimum wage' at all. That's not what wage means. Because you have to work for a 'wage'. You'd be getting a social safety income.

Second. You just contradicted yourself...

1. No, it won't change because it's a flat wage.

2. Yes, of course it will change. So what?

If you change wages based on location, which wouldn't be decided by states likely, but by the government. The government is inept. If you go on vacation or travel or move. You'd be able to change you live somewhere else and reap the rewards of the most expensive place...(also all of the illegals in the country would drain the country dry even faster, if all you needed was an address to rake in "The Rich's" aka American's tax dollars.)

You haven't given me any specifics whatsoever. To the point where I'm unsure how many times I have to say "give me data/numbers/statistical guesstimates please." Where's age? What age do you get this universal income?

Even if you just said, "I took my points straight from Sanders." I'd currently have more information, despite him also constantly contradicting/changing his own numbers.

(If people can't get more or less money based on what person they are...are we assuming pregnant woman are going to use/need the same resources as someone whose not?)

*I guess never mind, the next clarification is even more widespread*

???

No.

A living wage would account for the cost of utilities, transport, food, child care, ect, but it would not be based on how many people live in the house. Unless we're talking about children the person might have, in which case that falls under child care. If you have an adult living in your house who doesn't have a job, I don't think that's something that's going to count towards what the living wage should be.

@Pepperm1nts

I'll just cut to the chase. You cannot, in anyway, pay for this. At all. Especially, by only just 'taxing' the rich.

So the living wage, won't stop adversity and struggle. But it pays for a house, electricity, sewer, gas, internet, phone bill, water, heating, air conditioning, car, gas, any other mode of transportation, train tickets, bike, air travel, (some need it for work after all.) You've not specified, so I only assume you mean broadly. Which I know you'll say 'No, I didn't say that.' But you literally do, when you leave it that vague...

It's also a contradiction, because you said you weren't going to have the government pay for cars. You didn't even clarify, 'public transportation", which I'm sure we both know what that is...the fact you neglected to specify that, I think it says a lot...this is a Christmas Wish List...not an actual thought-out proposal. And I'd be finer with that if you didn't seem so self-assured that all the numbers and data are on your side and somehow you've been providing such, when you most certainly haven't.

A pet would be something you chose personally to get and care for on the side. This is like saying that the living wage would be different based on how many TVs you have.

@Pepperm1nts

If it was guaranteed to cover utilities, not only would the wage literally fluctuate, every single, gosh darn, day. Yes, have 6 T.V's, 4 microwaves and 3 fridges? You will use more electricity and thus need more 'living wage', so it literally matters how many T.V's you have. Could always put a limit/restriction on that. ^-^

Literally wat.

We absolutely know what a person needs to live. Food, shelter, utilities. In some places that might extend to healthcare, as well, but not here because we're still busy debating whether or not we should let poor people die when they get sick.

I'm not going to reply to the rest of what you wrote because it's basically you completely refusing to understand basic concepts and pretending like it's me that doesn't understand. Should have listened to myself when I thought about just not bothering to reply.

@Pepperm1nts

Yes, you only replied to what truly matters. I know 'literally wat' is such a thorough and thought-out addition, frankly seems like you covered just about all your bases's...

But for the record, no, I'm not an expert in economics and I never said I was or pretended to be. Thing is, neither are you, so I'd appreciate it if you stopped pretending like you know what you're talking about anymore than I do. I think we both have strong opinions on what we think would work. I don't agree with you and you don't agree with me, and that's fine. But these are nothing more than our opinions and our own personal defense of what we think works or would work.

@Pepperm1nts

That's fair. If you would have stated that from the start, this probably wouldn't have gone such a way. But I wish you'd do the same, because you stated so many times how you explained everything when you keep changing your own vague statements, without numbers, stats or basically any (much needed) clarifications.

It's probably better to cut this 'living wage' conversation off. Because if the next reply is the same as the others, it will just be a waste of both of our times, into more circular logic...

I appreciate the conversation, if you can manage to stomach me for something else you may like to talk about. Feel free to change topics.

[Polymorpheus]

.

[SleepingSilence]

The massive amounts of prosperity generated by mixed economies worldwide. Many exceptions to this trend exist for various reasons, and the benefits of meshing depend on their application.

@catchamber

Well the chart for GDP, seems to be in favor of the United States. While the 'freedom' chart seems very sketchy and not substantiated. How is Canada, a place where you can go to jail for hate speech. Or Australia, who had to forcefully give their guns back to the government. Any more free than the US?

Collectivism fails when it puts the group above its members, because power is transferred from individuals to those given authority over the group. A cohesive group has members that act with their own and others' interests in mind, aka mutual prosperity.

@catchamber

Isn't disagreement and conflict inevitable with large groups of people? Can't exactly achieve a hive-mind. Also do you think most people would act with their own interests first, over others?

If the political system is responsible, yes.

@catchamber

That's what I was asking. Is it or nah?

Are you implying capitalism can sometimes be the reason companies fail?

Like it would imply under socialism or elsewhere, failed kickstarter disasters or farce solar panel projects would work...but competition and the free-market held them back? Or is the onus on the individuals who made a bad investment/idea and should rightfully fail as a result of their own poor decisions?

May be revealing a bit of my hand on the matter, but I was curious what you thought on the situation.

Many problems, because a full toolbelt is better than just a hammer.

@catchamber

I mean, I suppose I don't have much to disagree with what you said. I'm not sure if the statement replied to was exactly addressed? But I'm okay with leaving it there. If that's your two cents on the subjects.

I guess I just kind of wish America would do the opposite. Because we're currently pushing to be like everyone else, when everyone else is pushing to be like us. Canada is getting more privatized healthcare. More countries are switching to market/capitalistic economies. I'd rather not have another Obamacare boondoogle.

[Polymorpheus]

.

[SleepingSilence]

Edit: In my morning stupor, I didn't notice the highlighted link words were three separate words. I can go into Australia, a bit later. But I stand by my general statement, that I doubt the results will be much different.

<Snipped quote by SleepingSilence>
Yes, the USA has economies of scale and the drive of being hyperpower to sustain its high GDP/capita (PPP). However, I believe these particular articles can better say how Australia and Canada can be less stifled than the USA.

Also, let's compare the 2017 deficits/capita of all 3 countries in US$:
Australia: $886
Canada: $871
US: $2,050

Not saying restricting free speech and defense rights is good, though. Those restrictions may ultimately harm the economy if maintained.

@catchamber

Okay, the first one talks about Canada and basically it touches on two points of contention.

1. Obamacare sucks. It has 100's of pages compared to Canada Health Act (Agreed.)

This doesn't make someone 'more free'. Because their system is still more restrictive. They're not even -open- on weekends. Their forced to wait for long periods of care, so much so they've been sued and have now tried changing their systems closer to ours.

forbes.com/sites/sallypipes/2018/06/1…

thenelsondaily.com/news/canada’s-heal…

And even if I agree with the statement...Obamacare, isn't all we have.

2. The second is about the lower corporate tax rate. Stating it's 28% percent. It makes a pretty weak case for Canada in general and questions if he'll ruin what his father built. (ha ha.) This was -before- Trump's job act.

"Since January 1, 2018, the nominal corporate tax rate in the United States of America is a flat 21 percent due to the passage of the "Tax Cuts and Jobs Act" on December 20, 2017. State and local taxes and rules vary by jurisdiction, though many are based on federal concepts and definitions."

So, again even if I agreed...that no longer applies.

How does the deficit thing relate to freedom exactly? (Could you source where you found those numbers too?)

"If maintained" seems to be a pretty superfluous qualifier, honestly. Like it's ever going to change? It's actively getting worse in countries like Canada and the U.K.

It can be in the right conditions, but those should be avoided by understanding: others' views, and that tolerating the possibility of conflict isn't a good excuse to tolerate conflict happening.

It depends on the system and situation.

The aim should be to ensure all have the opportunity to succeed at optimizing their trades without reducing productivity across the board.

@catchamber

I'd love an further explanation on that, specifically saying that it can actually be the free-market that makes a bushiness fail 'under the right conditions/it depends on the situation' when I think that couldn't be any further from the truth. Under the free-market, the stupidest ideas of the individual can actually be produce results and have people invest their money. Just think of the most ridiculous examples...people kickstarted a guy who was making potato salad...

Are you really going to blame capitalism for an individual/groups failure when stuff like that can prove lucrative?

Understanding others views as in your typical consumer? We already do that, their focus groups and I certainly wouldn't make a case that those have lead to great things, if anything the stifle the niche product.

I think most business failures aren't because not enough people said "Yes" but because no one was around to say, "No, don't do that." Conflict and compromise is absolutely required in life and it's not at all always a negative result.

I'm also not quite sure what the last sentence leads to, or means in the broad context of what we we're discussing...can you provide an example of what you may be discussing, or what you're looking for?

This hybridizing is a consequence of globalization, which has proved dangerous in the past if: economies and states are too interdependent, or the applied policies are theoretically practical but not suited to the situation. By granting citizens the authority to choose transactions as they see fit, be they provided by market or state, the whole gets to pick from the best of every world.

@catchamber

I'm not quite sure what this statement is leading to or implying. The first part is stating globalization in America is causing our problems, which seems to have an Isolationist bent. But the second seems to be implying, people getting to choose products from all over the world would proof to be beneficial...which doesn't seem supportive of the former statement.

While I can agree in one case that people should be able to choose where they go for care. Getting experimental drugs not in your country, that aren't by all definitions legal there. It's -your- life. But I feel the idea the government "grants" that, is a backwards thought that can get you into a mess.

The government shouldn't be the one granting you rights. The Constitution wasn't the government granting us the ability to speak our minds, with the knowledge they can strip it away if they so decide. It was a 'god given' right, that they understood the government shouldn't meddle with. That applies to many things, and frankly is the strongest argument against most socially conservative types that want to use government law to restrict freedoms. Give the government the ability to choose what drugs you can or cannot have, it doesn't matter you correct you are, you just rolled the dice and your fate is no longer in the individuals hand. If weed could magically cure cancer, (it can't), but if it did. Too bad, Bob Thorpinstein says you can't have it.

But my libertarian digression aside, I don't really understand the idea globalization being too blame for shitty things like Obamacare. I can think of many more examples of why that failed that don't involve anything outside of the United States...

[Polymorpheus]

.

[SleepingSilence]

1. But objective and quantifiable values like fiscal debt and energy output are harder to dismiss.

2. You mean to say it applies less, assuming the TC&JA even produces a real GDP growth rate increase. However, GDP/capita and deficits/capita must be compared to assess the bigger picture, alongside other values like assets/capita. Deficits are real things that influence economic behavior, as people believe in their power. Like terrorism, they're used as excuses to strip one's rights. As far as I know, all 3 countries are experiencing deficit/capita growth and rights restrictions, for various reasons in various places at various times.

I could source all of my numbers, but you could also go through the trouble of calculating them like I did, as all the data is public.

@catchamber

I mean it doesn't apply. If something is more free because it has less tax that means it isn't more free if there was more tax. That was the base of the article.

Are you saying that national debt can be a major contribute to things like the creation of terrorism? I suppose I just don't see the connection between having debt and not having a free people as a nation. I'm sure there are people with less national debt than the United States but they are nowhere near as free as we are. That's not getting into wealth either, but a wealthy man in Canada has less freedom than a poor man in America because of poor man in America cannot get jailed for speech.

I don't know how much those numbers will particularly help with the foregone conclusion. At least as far as I'm concerned.

Was the productivity gained from the situation's memetic and neurochemical effects greater than the real value of the input? If so, maybe its effects last a long time (i.e. being widely known), but that can lead to less efficient mimicry. If not, then irrational agents acted inefficiently, and wealth disparity forms or wealth is lost. Now compound the disparities and losses from all similar activities, and consider that different, paradoxical, or contradicting views on what capitalism is can inflate such viral economic problems.

A broken window can create jobs but hurt total prosperity, just like taking all the money in the world and lighting it on fire.

@catchamber

"The situation's mimetic and neurochemical effects" I'm just going to assume that this is relating to people kick-starting potato salad, because that was a bit of a word salad...

Can I really blame autocracy/extremism/propaganda for an individual/group failure, when stuff like that can prove lucrative given the appropriate mindset? Yes, yes I can.

@catchamber

I don't think capitalism particularly relates to any of those three things you mentioned. Nor do I think those equate or even that similar.

Understanding others' views, as in everyone, not just consumers.

@catchamber

Do you need to understand everyone's views to make an effective product? What about a niche product where its success is exactly because it doesn't cater to the mainstream? Doesn't the market already do this fairly well? Cater to the consumer base, based on their varied needs.

It's called giving a shit.

@catchamber

Elaborate on the sentence in question. I don't think that has much with care or lack thereof.

A and/or B is better than A or B.

@catchamber

So - A or B is better than A or B...(I can only assume that was meant both is better than one?) Which one of those things would that be? Isolation or Free Trade?

God given right, you say? Can I have nuclear arms, because 2nd amendment? Or will you argue that societies have the right to defend themselves by denying rights, which can be deemed "collectivism > individualism"?

@catchamber

Short answer: Irrelevant Long answer: Read The Federalist Papers.

Let's reread our exchange:
You: "If you acknowledge the latter, what problem do you think a 'mixed-bag system' solution would be useful for?"
Me: "Many problems, because a full toolbelt is better than just a hammer."
You: "I guess I just kind of wish America would do the opposite. Because we're currently pushing to be like everyone else, when everyone else is pushing to be like us. Canada is getting more privatized healthcare. More countries are switching to market/capitalistic economies. I'd rather not have another Obamacare boondoogle."
Me: "This hybridizing is a consequence of globalization, which has proved dangerous in the past if: economies and states are too interdependent, or the applied policies are theoretically practical but not suited to the situation. By granting citizens the authority to choose transactions as they see fit, be they provided by market or state, the whole gets to pick from the best of every world."
You: "But my libertarian digression aside, I don't really understand the idea globalization being too blame for shitty things like Obamacare. I can think of many more examples of why that failed that don't involve anything outside of the United States..."

Are you saying Obamacare is a consequence of globalization or not? Getting mixed signals over here.

@catchamber

I do not believe that word is an accurate representation of why it is a failure. My comments were regarded to how the healthcare system is not a free-market system. And how it is a horrible hybrid of systems, Obamacare being my example. You said there are many things that could improve. Do you have any particular examples of this? Mixed market systems that are not capitalist systems that just happened to have some social elements. An actual mixed political economy?

[Polymorpheus]

.

[SleepingSilence]

I have a feeling this will probably be the last time I reply on here, at least with this discussion in mind, because this isn't going anywhere. If there is something specific you wish to go into, we can have that chat on the other political thread instead...

It still applies, because not all aspects of the economy are as free as their international counterparts.

@catchamber

No, you don't seem to get it. You're addressing my point about the article being a failure to prove instants where a place is better by being outdated, but that was all you had when I asked my original question. You haven't provided any other examples, so it no longer applies...if there is a different aspects that proves otherwise, it has yet to be provided. I also don't agree that freedom even has to equate to 'has the best everything', so this entire line of argument won't likely go anywhere.

Advocating a philosophy that advocates for exploiting people will likely cause exploitation, making the idea as dangerous as its believers.

@catchamber

Capitalism doesn't do this. Also, 'believers' of capitalism are anyone who has ever been in a supermarket. I swear this line reads like something you could actually say about socialism or its counterparts and it would prove far more accurate...

Such is interdisciplinary debate.

@catchamber

Without actually clarifying, I honestly question if even you knew exactly what all that word salad was supposed to be saying...

"The aim should be to ensure all have the opportunity to succeed at optimizing their trades without reducing productivity across the board."

Which part of this doesn't make sense?

@catchamber

I've asked (several times now) for a real-world (or at this point, any) example of what you're talking about. Which I've yet to receive, and I don't take "lul, giving a shit" as an example of this ideal in practice.

A and/or B is better than A, B, A and B, or A or B, because you have more options. Which choice is useful in which condition depends on the context. In terms of economics, I think societies should be integrated but independent of each other. It's safer that way for individual societies and the ensemble.

@catchamber

Disregarding that there is two options presented, and the idea of their being more options is redundant. Because the two options are broad. So, are speaking about isolationism and globalism being 'useful in conditions and context'? Because that seems to be what is being answered, though specifically some of it had to do with free trading. If so, it's absurd to say "Sometimes, having no/next to no free trade will prove great for a nation's economy." It's a middle ground you're presenting that shouldn't even exist...

Analysis: Cop out.

Rebuttal: Can you quote the relevant section to prove your point?

@catchamber

I refuse to take anything said seriously, because of arguments like this. (I also kind-of refuse to believe you're actually that misinformed on such a thoroughly dismantled talking point...)

pigsandsheep.org/gun-rights-lesson-74…

[Polymorpheus]

.

[tex]

A question for all who frequent this thread, as I'm curious to see varied PoV on this topic:

What are your perspectives on 'libertarian-socialism'?

[Andreyich]

who

[Polymorpheus]

.

[tex]

@catchamber

Here's a wikipedia article I googled.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_soc…

[SleepingSilence]

@tex

"Noam Chomsky is one of the most well-known contemporary libertarian socialist thinkers."

newcriterion.com/issues/2003/5/the-hy…

conservapedia.com/Noam_Chomsky

"Chomsky denied the Cambodian Genocide, claiming that the killing had been inflated "by a factor of 100."[2][25] He further asserted that the (in reality) 2 to 3 million Cambodians slaughtered by the Khmer Rouge from 1975 to 1978 were morally comparable to Nazi collaborators during WW2, and that Pol Pot's Cambodia was "comparable to France after liberation [from the Nazis]."[26]"

The association of socialism with libertarianism predates that of capitalism and many anti-authoritarians still decry what they see as a mistaken association of capitalism with libertarianism in the United States.[44] As Noam Chomsky put it, a consistent libertarian "must oppose private ownership of the means of production and wage slavery, which is a component of this system, as incompatible with the principle that labor must be freely undertaken and under the control of the producer".[45]

Yeah, this seems like a, 'a rose by any other name...' situation.

The idea of these two mixing, is a general sense is absurd and impossible. If anyone attacks Libertarian because of it's too optimistic outlook on human behavior. The idea this can happen in any extent, while still somehow completely foregoing all privatization is a crackpot theory at best.

[Pepperm1nts]

I absolutely love how you unironically linked to conservapedia and newcriterion. Then you complain when people call out your sources as being extremely biased and/or opinion pieces by conservative writers. I mean, really dude, you're setting yourself up and destroying your own credibility when you do this shit, it's funny. It's also very telling that the conservapedia page is like 70% devoted to controversies, lmao. Totes a legit source. And didn't you criticize me when I linked to a wikipedia article defining social democracy? H I L A R I O U S. Wikipedia = bad and easily manipulated, conservapedia = totes legit and trustworthy. Get real.

[SleepingSilence]

I absolutely love how you unironically linked to conservapedia and newcriterion. Then you complain when people call out your sources as being extremely biased and/or opinion pieces by conservative writers. I mean, really dude, you're setting yourself up and destroying your own credibility when you do this shit, it's funny. It's also very telling that the conservapedia page is like 70% devoted to controversies, lmao. Totes a legit source. And didn't you criticize me when I linked to a wikipedia article defining social democracy? H I L A R I O U S. Wikipedia = bad and easily manipulated, conservapedia = totes legit and trustworthy. Get real.

@Pepperm1nts

That was a very civil way to counter a single point I made...

Oh wait.

Maybe, you should check that before you fling accusations, like a monkey flings their shit. The answer is no. I didn't attack you for simply using a source that I disagreed with. I asked you a personal question on what you believed something was, and you gave me a wikipedia article. Which didn't actually fully answer my question. So I commented on that fact, and made a sarcastic remark about wiki-pages being wrong sometimes.

Maybe if you could actually use those cogs, supposed to be in your brain and not squarely in your ass. You'd notice I replied to a wikipage which I -didn't- make a negative note of, because it was actually relevant to the conversation.

But sure, if I thought for a second any one who thought that was witty, was remotely intelligent enough to debate my sources points. I'd care more about using different articles. You make it incredibly difficult to speak this cordially and not directly insult you, but you do a well enough job embarrassing yourself. ^_^

[Pepperm1nts]

How long until you delete or edit that post like you do every other time you insult someone here or at the Discord to avoid bans? You have the courage to call someone a shit-flinging monkey and insult their intelligence, but it fades away within minutes and you take it all back because you're afraid of the consequences. Notice how I didn't insult you once, just pointed out an inconsistency and the humor I found in it and in the sources you provided, but I guess being called out really gets to you, huh? Mr. NOBODY-WANTS-TO-BE-CIVIL-IN-THE-POLITICS-THREAD-REEE is suddenly a-okay with insulting people.