random off-topic thread

[Newman]

I wish the Dems could attack McCain at his weakness - his age. Seeing clips now on cable of intrepid reporters asking McCain simple questions and he looks confused and OLD.

I suppose if the Dems attacked him on that then people would feel sorry for the old man and vote for him out of pity?

1. McCain is not a friend of the veteran. He votes against almost all veterans bills and when asked about why he does that he just tap dances or denies the truth.

2. He was asked why Congress and the pharmaceutical companies allow viagra to be supplied to it's customers but not birth control pills. He couldn't remember voting on that bill or where he stood on the issue. "I'll get back to you on that one."

3. If a country (Iraq) and it's leader (Maliki) asks us to leave our foreign occupation - they want us out - shouldn't we leave?! This seems so fundamental. Or why doesn't McCain say NO, we must stay, they are our oil colony, we want to keep stealing their oil. Period. Be honest.

Instead McCain does some spin about al qaeda still being active in Iraq, and that we are needed there, blah blah blah. More people were killed in Detroit last month than in the whole country of Iraq! Why are we there still? Why don't we take care of our own business, our own country?!

[Newman]

It's like McCain's strength is WAR, and this is just another bad American war, like the Vietnam War, McCain's war.

I could understand why we attacked and invaded Iraq, because of what they did to us on September 11, 2001, except that they did nothing to us on 9/11! 16 of the 19 highjackers were from Saudi Arabia. Perhaps if we had invaded and occupied THAT country, maybe you could sell THAT war to me. Not this one.

Bush never went after bin laden. Never. Why you people on the far right aren't furious over that baffles me. Who attacked us on 9/11? Osama bin laden (supposedly). And what was Bush and McCain's response? Attack and occupy Iraq! It's insane!

[TheIncredibleRox]

Maybe you learned something different in your lily white private school, Incredible?

Boy are you an idiot. Never attended a private school in my life. My High School was maybe 30-45% black, probably another 20% hispanic. All the grade-level principals, except one, were black. The overall principal was black. Every men's sports coach was black, except the Varsity football head coach (and all his assistants were black) and the JV Soccer Coach (Hispanic of some sort, I forget where he was from). Each of the 5 or 6 school security guards were black. My sophmore year English teacher, Mrs. Ackerman, informed our class on the first day of the year we'd only be reading selections from black authors. And we did (which I found funny, since that particular class was maybe 25 white kids, 3-5 hispanic kids, and exactly 2 black kids).

But way to pull an assumption completely out of your ass and try to use it to make me look sheltered to other cultures.

[Newman]

Originally Posted by TheIncredibleRox

Boy are you an idiot. Never attended a private school in my life. My High School was maybe 30-45% black, probably another 20% hispanic. All the grade-level principals, except one, were black. The overall principal was black. Every men's sports coach was black, except the Varsity football head coach (and all his assistants were black) and the JV Soccer Coach (Hispanic of some sort, I forget where he was from). Each of the 5 or 6 school security guards were black. My sophmore year English teacher, Mrs. Ackerman, informed our class on the first day of the year we'd only be reading selections from black authors. And we did (which I found funny, since that particular class was maybe 25 white kids, 3-5 hispanic kids, and exactly 2 black kids).

But way to pull an assumption completely out of your ass and try to use it to make me look sheltered to other cultures.

LOL, Incredible! I burst out laughing at your reply. (But what's with the name calling?)? You far righties are so EMOTIONAL! And defensive. Just because all the racists are on your side of the ledger doesn't mean you are one (though I do scratch my head and wonder why a bright boy like you would want to be a member of that club). Is this the root of your rightiness? You were forced to read black literature as a kid and resented it?

Adam, did you happen to see the article in the paper today about the Nationals GM Jim Bowden (page 4, Rocky), and Jose Rijo, being investigated for a scandal involving skimming bonus money from Dominican prospects?! I'm guessing you'd be on Bowden's side. Isn't that simply smart people taking advantage of poor stupid people? Isn't that just the kind of American ingenuity and acumen that you of the far right admire and aspire to?

Isn't that quite like the predatory mortgage lending crisis we are living through right now - smart, evil people taking advantage of poor stupid people? Again, what would Mr. Potter do?

[BigRapidsJackass]

Newman, that's the kind of crap that drove the noble Mr. Roxpert into hiding.

The "predatory mortgage lending crisis?" Just as much a falsehood as "foolish middle class Americans being driven by greed into more house than they could afford." There's plenty of blame to be parceled out, but the subprime mortgage crisis does not lend (hah! a pun) itself to such simplistic explanations.

IR is, I take it, young. And no offense, IR, but the young and intellectually inquisitive are often drawn toward extremes. Sometimes they like radical lefty politics. Sometimes they like radical free marketeers like Ayn Rand. As they get older, their views moderate, but they maintain their curiosity ... and that is to be treasured.

Me? I'm a middle-aged former left-leaning, current middle of the road type with a strong libertarain bent. I wasn't an evil commie America hater when I was a young liberal; I'm not an evil reactionary racist now that I'm a middle aged libertarian.

My transformation has more to do with my movement from an honest but immature belief that Government is good and should be brought in to solve all social ills, to a sober assessment that Government is only as honest as good as those who govern, and that that means that the Government is often captured by the special, narrow interests it exists to control.

Look again at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. You'll see Republicans and Democrats at work, lobbying Congress on behalf of their Government-sponsored corporations, constantly seeking authority to engage in more exotic and risky mortgage transactions that are exactly the opposite of the kind of boring, middle-class homeownership mortgage marketing they were created to further. That is what is called "government capture," or "rent-seeking behavior," and it is at the heart of this crisis.

IR is a fairly hard-line libertarian; he likely believes that government intervention typically results in losses to both freedom and efficiency. He is deeply distrustful of the government. Heltonfan seems to me to be (no insult intended) something of an elitist liberal. He is extremely skeptical that the mass of individuals will make prudent decisions for themselves, and that a benevolent/paternal government should step in to demand/insure prudent decisionmaking through collective action. Neither are evil positions. They are based on very different opinions of individual decisionmaking and collective decisionmaking. Neither of them share my opinions, although admittedly IR is closer, in that we know that individuals will often make bad choices, but we are optimistic that overall the outcome of millions of individual choices will be better than an elite that requires certain behaviors. We're more skeptical of the collective than of the individual.

[Newman]

Jackass,

I guess there's no mortgage lending crisis. My bad. All the news about foreclosures must be made up, fiction. Obviously YOU are not losing YOUR house, so therefore there is no crisis, right, Jackass? Is that what you're saying? No...you're saying that it's not a simple crisis, it's a complicated one. OK, we can agree on that. It's still a crisis though.

There's a gas crisis as well. Again, not simple - but it definitely is there.

War in Iraq? Most Americans have war fatigue. How are we paying for Bush's war? The simple answer is that we are borrowing from Communist China and Saudi Arabia. Is there a simple plan for how we are going to pay off this huge debt? Another crisis, not a simple one either.

To me the debate is about the role of government. WE THE PEOPLE, elect the government. We don't elect the CEOs of big corporations who seem to be running our government, telling the legislature and president what to do thru lobbyist pressure and money.

Libertarians don't trust the government. Well, fine. But how can you trust multinational corporations? At least we have a say in government. We don't with corporations. And corporations only care about profit and not about WE THE PEOPLE.

[Heltonfan]

Heltonfan seems to me to be (no insult intended) something of an elitist liberal.

That's a perfectly fair way of putting it. TIR cites Ayn Rand as a primary philosophical influence; I'd cite Thomas Hobbes, albeit more for the way in which he outlines the problem than the way in which he would solve it.

As I think I've made clear in the past, the whole American ideal just doesn't do much for me. Mostly because, like Newman, I'm not a capitalist at heart. I enjoy sitting at home, doing baseball analysis, and learning languages. I don't need a six-figure salary to do that (well, I take that back. Given that what I'm currently earning is Armenian drams ($1 = 300 AMD), I most certainly do need a six-figure salary. But the point remains).

I am no fan of Immanuel Kant (see, I can find common ground with the Randians too...), but there is one aspect of his philosophy which I think is essential to a healthy society: other people should be treated as ends, not as means. This is a profoundly anti-capitalist sentiment, but what happens when a society strays from it? Massive income disparities that leave entire segments of the population virtually helpless. Which leads to crime. Which leads to the incarceration and further marginalization of the oppressed group. I am of course speaking primarily about black America, which leads me to another point: slavery. Slavery is the logical result of unrestricted capitalism, a shining example of why basic human decency isn't something we can take for granted, and therefore of why government is essential.

So we can all agree that the government needs to ensure at least some minimal quality of life for its citizens; it's just a matter of deciding where to draw the line. I see stories about horrendous, self-destructive societies like that of inner-city Philadelphia, where kids are carrying guns to defend themselves against each other and are more likely to end up killed or jailed than to earn a high school diploma, and life is, for lack of a better way to put it, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short, and I say that I want the line to be drawn above that. And it just so happens that income redistribution is an effective way to go about drawing the line.

[TheIncredibleRox]

I am no fan of Immanuel Kant (see, I can find common ground with the Randians too...), but there is one aspect of his philosophy which I think is essential to a healthy society: other people should be treated as ends, not as means.

I disagree with this, because I regard pure altruism as immoral (and especially when done with state force, but that's another story).

To elaborate: as cold as it sounds, I treat people as ends to the extent they are of value to me. I don't mean financial value, or anything so superficial; the people I care about or love in some way or another, regardless of their status or means. From the homeless guy who tells me a funny joke, to a long-known message board acquaintance (yes, even you, Newman), to a friend or member of my immediate family; it is of selfish value to me to see them happy. This is not so harsh as it sounds: you may have the impression this means I don't help the old lady across the street with her groceries, because she is a stranger to me. But I would, because this act of kindess would make me happy: I am selfishly happy-- it pleases me to know that I made someone's day a little easier or better, and it didn't take much effort.

What I regard as immoral is treating people as ends who are complete non-entities to me. I would not give Newman's neighbor a 5 dollar bill or cook him dinner right now; I know nothing about the man (or woman, or family), he could be wonderful, he could be terrible... but either way, he is a complete non-value to me. Would that $5 or the effort of cooking dinner make life a little better? Whether he's a millionaire or on food stamps, sure, it would have some value to him.

But when I do something for that person, I am doing so at the expense of myself and those I love; I am trading my values (that I have worked to acquire, and could otherwise use on myself and those I love) in return for no love from anyone or no love to anyone I care about. This type of sacrifice is a betrayal to myself and everyone I love, or who loves me.

Slavery is the logical result of unrestricted capitalism

I strongly disagree: the entire premise of unrestricted capitalism is that nothing occurs that is not a product of the voluntary cooperation of free individuals. If you're outside of those bounds, you're not practicing capitalism.

So we can all agree that the government needs to ensure at least some minimal quality of life for its citizens; it's just a matter of deciding where to draw the line.

The reason I said earlier in the thread that this nation was, in it's founding principles, the first and only truly moral nation on Earth: it was the first society which was founded upon a list of things that the government can't do to you as individuals, as opposed to what government must do for you as individuals. Because anytime you found a nation on the latter, you are acknowledging that you accept at least a certain level of tyranny: in order for a government to give, it must first, obviously, take. The fact that our country was founded on the principles it was provides, in my mind, the most correct role for government: to ensure that men exist freely and cooperate as they please, so long as they don't interfere with other's rights to do the same. The only thing the government owes us a duty to provide are the things which would uphold that principal; defense, and a reasonable apparatus by which to arbitrate and/or punish violators of that principle.

And besides all my deep philosophical garble: in practice, governments that do more than what I described above just plain fail.

[Heltonfan]

I disagree with this, because I regard pure altruism as immoral.

I regard pure altruism as non-existent, and impossible.

To elaborate: as cold as it sounds, I treat people as ends to the extent they are of value to me. I don't mean financial value, or anything so superficial; the people I care about or love in some way or another, regardless of their status or means. From the homeless guy who tells me a funny joke, to a long-known message board acquaintance (yes, even you, Newman), to a friend or member of my immediate family; it is of selfish value to me to see them happy. This is not so harsh as it sounds: you may have the impression this means I don't help the old lady across the street with her groceries, because she is a stranger to me. But I would, because this act of kindness would make me happy: I am selfishly happy-- it pleases me to know that I made someone's day a little easier or better, and it didn't take much effort.

I agree with everything in this paragraph.

What I regard as immoral is treating people as ends who are complete non-entities to me.

I wouldn't call it immoral (as I think I've said before, morality simply isn't a concept I use), but I would certainly call it senseless. But I fail to see the relevance.

Because anytime you found a nation on the latter, you are acknowledging that you accept at least a certain level of tyranny: in order for a government to give, it must first, obviously, take.

But even you accept that certain level of tyranny. So what's the harm in acknowledging it?

In practice, governments that do more than what I described above just plain fail.

Fail to do what? To protect their citizens' "right" not to be taxed? Well, no kidding. If you mean something broader than that, though, I'd like you to explain how the lower-poverty, better-educated social democracies of Western Europe are failing.

[TheIncredibleRox]

I regard pure altruism as non-existent, and impossible.

and then, in re: to my paragraph concerning treating people as ends:

I agree with everything in this paragraph.

Then you'll have to elaborate for me in regard to society's need to treat all people as ends. It seems to me you contradicted yourself, but I'm interested to know how you reconcile those feelings. Maybe I'm missing your point.

I haven't yet read Kant. Do you reccomend it? Have you read any Rand? Do you have a particular philosopher you're very high on? Even if it's someone I seem to disagree with whole-heartedly, I love hearing the arguments if you have any strong reccomendations.

I wouldn't call it immoral (as I think I've said before, morality simply isn't a concept I use), but I would certainly call it senseless. But I fail to see the relevance.

Well however you care to phrase it, I don't regard it as correct that a government has a right to force me to do something either immoral or senseless.

I'd like you to explain how the lower-poverty, better-educated social democracies of Western Europe are failing.

Lower poverty? Only France has a poverty rate meaningfully below ours: between Germany, the UK, Spain, Portugal, Belgium, and the Netherlands, we are right on par with them or we smoke them in terms of % of population below poverty line (couldn't find data for Italy). We're well ahead of all of those countries except the Netherlands in terms of unemployment rate, most by at least 3 percentage points. We smoke all of them in terms of productivity, measured by per-capita GDP. Nobody beats our literacy rate (99%) though several are tied, and none are below 94%.

And this is all despite the fact that A) We are part of a much larger, much more diverse nation than any of those described, which creates difficulties. B) The 2000's have been a crest for Western Europe, they've closed the gap plenty in the last 10 years, but it's still not reasonably close.

But, beyond those facts, there is another main reason I feel Western Europe (perhaps spare the UK) is doomed long-term: they've managed to completely emasculate themselves. A) They've collectively relinquished a great deal of sovereignty to the EU. B) If you can't even spend 2% of GDP on defense, you're a joke. That's one main reason why the EU has been so ineffectual diplomatically... they don't have the means or the collective will to be tough if/when they need to be, so their rhetoric is empty. Now, you may accuse me of being a knuckle-dragging, militaristic blowhard here. But the truth is, there are Mahmoud Ahmadinejads and Bashir Assads and Muanmer Gaddafis and Robert Mugabes in the world, and even if you want to bury your head in the sand to the atrocities they commit in their own regions, fine... but at a certain point, they become a threat to you. And if you don't present a serious military deterrent, they'll let you talk at them all day while they go on building their nukes and threatening liberal democracies.

The sovereignty issues, combined with the lack of any effective foreign capabilities, also create problems within their own borders. What was Spain's reaction to the tragic Madrid bombings? Roll over and do what the Islamists say. How did France respond to the massive country-wide riots that started ~1 year ago and countinue in some vesitges? Play blind or dead... there are still large 'no-go' zones for police in Parisian and other metropolitan ghettos.

And, to cap it all off... a major reason for the economic gap being closed (even though we're still ahead) is that America has been moving, for quite some time now, towards the Euro style of socialism and away from what made it great. In fact, most Western European nations have corporate tax rates far lower than we do here (I'm not sure anyone in Western Europe has higher rates than we do).

[Heltonfan]

Then you'll have to elaborate for me in regard to society's need to treat all people as ends. It seems to me you contradicted yourself, but I'm interested to know how you reconcile those feelings. Maybe I'm missing your point.

I said only that pure altruism is impossible. There's a large gray area between pure altruism and waging war (economic, physical, or whatever) on one's neighbors; you can stick up for yourself without overly exploiting others. That kind of activity is what a successful society is based on.

It seems to me that your utopia is one in which a huge number of people end up utterly miserable. It's purely subjective, of course, but that's not an ideology I can embrace.

And I don't see anything particularly altruistic or senseless about paying taxes. I'm one individual in a huge world; I'm realistic about my position. I need help, and I'm more than happy to pay for it. If I wasn't paying the government for it, I'd be paying someone else, and I'd rather trust the government, an institution created precisely for this purpose, than a private individual or corporation whose intentions may be quite different and whose limitations may be much greater. That's not to say that I'm blind to the possibility of corruption, of course, but the government strikes me as a much safer bet.

Re: Western Europe:

1) "Western Europe" includes Scandinavia. I thought that went without saying.

2) Even if you're right about the emasculation of those countries (and in the big picture, you may well be), that doesn't have anything to do with their economic systems. Lowering taxes won't enable them to spend more on defense.

3) Literacy rate: education :: batting average: hitting. It's too superficial to tell us much of anything. There have been tons of studies showing how the U.S. lags behind almost all of Europe in math, history, geography, etc (and foreign languages, obviously)... that's a lot more meaningful, and of course, it's pretty hard to become knowledgeable in those areas if you don't know how to read. And, venturing into something more subjective here: have you had much opportunity to talk with age peers from other countries? Because, in my experience, the difference is hard not to notice. They're just better informed than Americans are. This even applies to Armenia (or at least Yerevan), which is hardly a paragon of development.

4) Much of this depends on what your sources are for the poverty and literacy figures. I'm looking at the 2006 Human Development Report (for the United Nations Development Program), which I downloaded a while back, and it gives the following numbers:
% of population lacking functional literacy skills: Sweden 7.5, Norway 7.9, Denmark 9.6, Finland 10.4, The Netherlands 10.5, Belgium 18.4, US 20.0, UK 21.8
% of population below the poverty line: Finland 5.4, Norway 6.4, Sweden 6.5, The Netherlands 7.3, Belgium 8.0, France 8.0, UK 12.4, Italy 12.7, Spain 14.3, US 17.0.
Those don't look quite as promising. At least we beat Russia...

5) Yeah, the US unemployment rates are a little lower, but given that unemployment in Western Europe is less unpleasant than unemployment in the States, that hardly seems like a big point in favor of life in the US. You may regard welfare as immoral, but it certainly improves the quality of life of those receiving it.

[TheIncredibleRox]

I find it hard to believe that a fifth of us are functionally illiterate. I've seen all corners of this country and lived in everything from the smallest towns to medium sized cities to large ones, and that just strikes me as way off.

My info came from the CIA World Factbook, and most of the stats were 2007 (not that one year could explain any of the huge discrepancies we see).

Poverty, defined in the factbook: "National estimates of the percentage of the population falling below the poverty line are based on surveys of sub-groups, with the results weighted by the number of people in each group. Definitions of poverty vary considerably among nations. For example, rich nations generally employ more generous standards of poverty than poor nations."

So it's subjective, but does not say if those stats are from the host government or what. If anything, though, this would make the US poverty line look worse comparatively. I am looking at the HDR and cannot find their definition of statistics. But A) My copy shows US literacy rate blank, and B) they rank the US as the 8th most developed nation in the World. The western European nations ahead are Norway, Sweden, Ireland, and the Netherlands. Worth considering: all those countries, combined, have about 3million fewer people than the state of Florida.

something more subjective here: have you had much opportunity to talk with age peers from other countries? Because, in my experience, the difference is hard not to notice. They're just better informed than Americans

I absolutely agree. But I think there are a couple more factors at play here than just American laziness: A) In those countries, you're exposed to a lot more cultures and languages simply as a matter of geography. I'm not even sure who our nearest non-Christian-majority neighbor of a nation is. But this plays a big role: I can't tell you how different people my age in Florida are, culturally, than those my age in Colorado. And it's because Cubans and Jamaicans and Puerto Ricans and Haitans are right there, and we trade some things culturally. B) As mush as I hate it, there's less incentive to care about the rest of the world growing up American. We culturally dominate the world and take only bits and pieces in return. Not many Americans grow up thinking of moving abroad for their careers/lives (and strictly from a work perspective, why would they?), but if you're growing up in my fatherland of Croatia, I'd imgaine it's a much more tangible concept that Russia, Germany, France, Turkey, Greece, Morocco, or Lebannon might well be places we want to mark our mark when our education is through. Americans don't even seriously entertain Canada.

If I wasn't paying the government for it, I'd be paying someone else, and I'd rather trust the government

But the record is so clear: government is just a horrible purveyor of practically any market it enters, when compared to free market forces.

I'd rather trust the government, an institution created precisely for this purpose, than a private individual or corporation whose intentions may be quite different

I don't know how deep of a study of economics you've ever undertaken, but are you familiar with the popular concept of the invisible hand? If so, do you disagree?

And again, the main thing I'd hammer home in terms of economic disparity: we are, person for person, the wealthiest and most productive nation on the face of the Earth.

[BigRapidsJackass]

Well, most of us have never met a real Hobbesian. Until now, I guess.

Really, Heltonfan. Nobody is a Hobbesian. Hobbes is a pivotal figure in political theory in the way that Copernicus is a pivotal figure in cosmology: you can recognize the power of his intellect and his role in initiating a half-millenium's worth of a research program, but no serious person is a "Hobbesian," and it would be meaningless to call any serious astronomer a "Copernican."

Meanwhile, Ayn Rand was an interesting little firebrand, but she certainly does not stand among the giants of modern political philosophy. Try Hayek for a more mature, less shrill version.

You would be laughed out of a graduate program in philosophy or political theory if you called yourselves "Hobbesians" or "Randians." These are fundamentally childish views of the world.

Sorry, whippersnappers. This is why you have to be 35 to be President. Those founding fathers knew a thing or two.

Yeah, the US unemployment rates are a little lower, but given that unemployment in Western Europe is less unpleasant than unemployment in the States

And of course these are completely independent variables. The fact that unemployment is not so unpleasant has never caused anyone to stop looking for work and to start living off my taxes.

I have a better idea ... we could completely eliminate the stigma and lower standard of living of the unemployed! That would be utopia!! Then when the entire population becomes lazy *******s who refuse to work, we could force them to work!!! That way we'll have a true union of truly socialist republics!!!! Let's call it the Union of Socialist Republics, or the USR!!!!! That's never been tried before!!!!!!!!!!

[TheIncredibleRox]

Sorry, whippersnappers. This is why you have to be 35 to be President. Those founding fathers knew a thing or two.

LOL... Thanks for the reffing, BRJ... but honestly I've found this conversation worthwhile... I'd like to say, not to be patronizing in the slightest, I think HF is a very intelligent and obviously very educated person, and it's always fun to throw ideas and ideaologies back and forth with someone like that. It's been a passionate, ideas-based discussion, and nobody had to get called a Nazi/racist/communist/etc (which is refreshing).

[TheIncredibleRox]

You would be laughed out of a graduate program in philosophy or political theory if you called yourselves "Hobbesians" or "Randians." These are fundamentally childish views of the world.

I think you edited this in after I replied, but you are mistaken in regards to Rand (dunno about Hobbes). Objectivism (the name of Rand's philosophy) actually has a major representation at top Universities, specifically those with top philosophy programs.

And, from what I know about Hayek, he does not seem so different from Rand. He actually seems to be a sort of amalgamation of Rand's philosophy and Milton Friedman's economic/political idealogies (which aren't at all exclusive of one another.... they're entriely similar), which is pretty much how I'd define myself.