Cricket Betting Site Betway
Page 1072 of 1760 FirstFirst ... 7257297210221062107010711072107310741082112211721572 ... LastLast
Results 16,066 to 16,080 of 26392
Like Tree10113Likes

Thread: The American Politics thread

  1. #16066
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend Shri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    CSK
    Posts
    22,767
    I heard that you can't own land in the UK like in other countries. Is it different in some way over there?
    I am proud of this post.

    Quote Originally Posted by Burgey View Post
    Ashwin is like one of those paintings whose eye always follows you around the room. He'd be hell in a court room. The judge and the witness would always think he's lookong at both of them at the same time.
    Quote Originally Posted by honestbharani View Post
    You are basically saying he would have made an amazing lawyer. :)
    Quote Originally Posted by Burgey View Post
    No im saying he's partly cross-eyed.

  2. #16067
    Cricketer Of The Year Ausage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    I'll show ye!!
    Posts
    8,675
    Read this a while back which references some obscure examples.

    Ultimately all these examples aren't going to satisfy anyone that wants "proof" that Libertarianism "works" (which as PEWS said isn't a term that most of us could even agree upon). It's obviously heavily based in theory but saying "it won't work because it's never worked" is a fairly disingenuous argument when it's never been tried. Particularly when the fact that copious examples of failed socialist/communist states doesn't seem to stop a pretty large number of people arguing we should move in that direction.
    Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity.

    Too many bones, not enough CASH!!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEHMbJ_FVfA
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5oGJTUpbpA

    RIP Craig

  3. #16068
    Hall of Fame Member Ikki's Avatar
    Cricket Champion!
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Don't leave me Murph!
    Posts
    15,463
    Quote Originally Posted by NZTailender View Post
    It's an adherence to a ideal theory, much like Communism, which ignores human nature. Except Libertarians for the most part feel as though they're ideal-less because idealism is stupid and for the deluded, which makes the whole thing a futile exercise in ironic cloud shouting. The irony would be cute if they weren't so insufferable, much like modern day white Marxists who are, 99% of the time, privileged douchebags.
    Ideal(s) exist in libertarianism but they serve to empower the individual and not collectives. Since we are all individuals people do not argue against individual rights, by and large, however we do so with regards to groups (identity politics) all the time and some of us even do it with the misguided belief that it is for the benefit of all.

    Thinking about this issue for many years I have come to the realisation that our differences are largely down to perspective and our misunderstanding of perspective and reality which can be separate and often are. That's why fascists, communists, and all the people in between and on the sides who end up harming more people than they help originate from the same misguided notion that what they are doing is intrinsically good and without debate wish to usher in their goodness. This extends to you regardless of whether you are a marxist or even someone like me who claims to be a libertarian. We all have to be vigilant to define ourselves and our reality properly. Simply stating that there is a collective responsibility as a given isn't living in reality.

    As you read this, breath, eat and sleep you may appreciate that your consciousness controls your body. Living in our delusions we try our best to widen our influence and we spin narratives to justify them and others sometimes follow. We will spin these narratives as wide and as far as possible and that we have governments we don't trust yet think we need is precisely the kind of cognitive dissonance you have to have for your own self to be an unwitting cog in someone else's delusion. You are responsible for yourself because your consciousness has inherited no other body to control. That is reality. From there we can build solutions living in reality, and one of them is the free exchange of ideas, as well as goods and services. This will then become a mechanism for the rest of society as we face ideas and we determine their utility based on how many individuals engage or disengage with them. Even if someone is misguided, let their delusion be their own downfall or those that follow the same line of thinking. We are so averse to failure without recognising that without the balancing nature of something undesirable occurring, we will not be able to recognise what really is desirable as we will not have a point of reference/comparison. Because only in a delusion can you stave off reality, which is the eventuation that something wrong can/will happen.
    Last edited by Ikki; 01-04-2017 at 03:37 AM.
    Ausage likes this.
    ★★★★★

  4. #16069
    Request Your Custom Title Now! Uppercut's Avatar
    Tournaments Won: 1
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    .
    Posts
    30,253
    Quote Originally Posted by Ausage View Post
    Read this a while back which references some obscure examples.

    Ultimately all these examples aren't going to satisfy anyone that wants "proof" that Libertarianism "works" (which as PEWS said isn't a term that most of us could even agree upon). It's obviously heavily based in theory but saying "it won't work because it's never worked" is a fairly disingenuous argument when it's never been tried. Particularly when the fact that copious examples of failed socialist/communist states doesn't seem to stop a pretty large number of people arguing we should move in that direction.
    That's not entirely true. The fact that no libertarian states exist suggests that they have some survival disadvantages. An argument that's supported by Petersen's long list of defunct libertarian states.


  5. #16070
    Global Moderator Spark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    A Blood Rainbow
    Posts
    54,723
    Quote Originally Posted by Munificent_Fool View Post
    Yeah I was going to post what Spark said. The best example is 30's Spain about which Orwell wrote Homage To Catalonia. Was crushed by Communists.
    I have to reread that book...
    citoyens, vouliez-vous une révolution sans révolution?

  6. #16071
    Global Moderator Spark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    A Blood Rainbow
    Posts
    54,723
    Quote Originally Posted by watson View Post
    The only way a fully private healthcare system could survive financially is if were decided by society that people should die prematurely of illnesses like cancer or heart disease.

    Because there is no way that a general hospital in a poor suburb/demographic could make ends meet short of formulating an ethical policy on who gets to live and who gets to die in order to drive down costs and maintain profit.
    Wahey, a watson post I wholeheartedly agree with.

    Anyway, meanwhile... http://blogs.cfr.org/zenko/2017/03/0...tion-of-power/
    Last edited by Spark; 01-04-2017 at 04:06 AM.

  7. #16072
    Hall of Fame Member Pothas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Brum
    Posts
    16,123
    Quote Originally Posted by Prince EWS View Post
    Different answers for different libertarians -- not everyone's a libertarian for the same reason(s). For most of us it's a mix of both those things though.
    Yeah I expected that but would you still believe it if you knew it would make life worse for the majority people? I know that this is probably a really hard question to answer and maybe most libertarians believe in their ideas so completely that they don't consider it a possibility.

    This should definetly be in the other thread as well.

  8. #16073
    Cricketer Of The Year Ausage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    I'll show ye!!
    Posts
    8,675
    Quote Originally Posted by Uppercut View Post
    That's not entirely true. The fact that no libertarian states exist suggests that they have some survival disadvantages. An argument that's supported by Petersen's long list of defunct libertarian states.
    Sure, but the "survival" disadvantages are related to its capacity to be implemented, which isn't related to whether it would work or not. The topic started with people asking why someone would support Libertarianism the fact it hasn't been tried isn't a mark against it in that context. It's an interesting contrast to pure Marxism/communism which has been historically easier to implement but very clearly doesn't work.
    indiaholic likes this.

  9. #16074
    Global Moderator Prince EWS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Cribbertopia
    Posts
    57,284
    Quote Originally Posted by Pothas View Post
    Yeah I expected that but would you still believe it if you knew it would make life worse for the majority people? I know that this is probably a really hard question to answer and maybe most libertarians believe in their ideas so completely that they don't consider it a possibility.

    This should definetly be in the other thread as well.
    I think your idea of a 'make life worse' might be different from mine. If someone chose to treat themselves to hundreds of dollars worth of high end clothes every month instead of buying health insurance and then died as a result, you might argue that the lack of an insurance mandate made their life worse, but I would fundamentally disagree. Obviously we'd be in different territory with people who couldn't afford the basics of living if they also bought health insurance, but I don't think the fundamental difference in opinion really exists at what would happen at this extreme end.

    This very subjectivity in ideas is pretty much the prime reason I'm a libertarian as I saw it as the framework for the biggest potential diversity of pursuit, but this sort of thing makes it hard to conceptualise what a 'worse life' is sometimes. What might be better to you might be terrible to someone else.

    Ultimately though, I do recognise that there's a bit of gap between what I think I can argue along consequential lines and what I think you need to be a ideological libertarian i believe, and I still believe the latter. There's a fair bit I think can be argued to wishy washy utilitarian balancers that I actually think would be in the interests of what they were trying to achieve, but there's some stuff I think I'd need to actually sell someone on libertarianism as a whole to believe. Looking at that way, I guess I'm more in the "fundamental moral idea" territory.
    Pothas likes this.
    Rejecting 'analysis by checklist' and 'skill absolutism' since Dec '09
    'Stats' is not a synonym for 'Career Test Averages'


    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffrey Tucker
    Someone asked me the other day if I believe in conspiracies. Well, sure. Here's one. It is called the political system. It is nothing if not a giant conspiracy to rob, trick and subjugate the population.
    Before replying to TJB, always remember:
    Quote Originally Posted by TheJediBrah View Post
    Next week I'll probably be arguing the opposite

  10. #16075
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    9,851
    Quote Originally Posted by NZTailender View Post
    It's an adherence to a ideal theory, much like Communism, which ignores human nature. Except Libertarians for the most part feel as though they're ideal-less because idealism is stupid and for the deluded, which makes the whole thing a futile exercise in ironic cloud shouting. The irony would be cute if they weren't so insufferable, much like modern day white Marxists who are, 99% of the time, privileged douchebags.
    All ideologies ignore human nature by definition, and then fail because of human nature. It really doesn't matter which one you pick whether it be Christianity, Islam, Socialism, Capitalism and so on.

    In recent years Capitalism has failed spectacularly in the form of the GFC and enviromental destruction on a global scale. Neoliberalism gave us the war in Iraq, the collapse of Democratic Socialism, and the subsequent rise of Populism/Fascism. Without doubt it has failed spectacularly as an ideology as well.

    So currently we are in a rudderless vacuum because we have either degraded, smashed apart, or sold-off most of the old institutions that under-pinned our society. What a bunch of idiots.
    Last edited by watson; 01-04-2017 at 04:39 AM.

  11. #16076
    Hall of Fame Member FaaipDeOiad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    19,957
    Quote Originally Posted by Ikki View Post
    As you read this, breath, eat and sleep you may appreciate that your consciousness controls your body. Living in our delusions we try our best to widen our influence and we spin narratives to justify them and others sometimes follow. We will spin these narratives as wide and as far as possible and that we have governments we don't trust yet think we need is precisely the kind of cognitive dissonance you have to have for your own self to be an unwitting cog in someone else's delusion. You are responsible for yourself because your consciousness has inherited no other body to control. That is reality.
    I'm trying to understand your actual point here and having some difficulty. Is your argument just that adhering to a value system that places collective interests above your own means that you've just been duped by someone else into believing in something which disadvantages you? That it's based on a "misguided notion" of doing "intrinsic good" at the sacrifice of self-interest, and that it just serves to benefit another actor? I feel like this is a common view for libertarians and you seem to be more or less saying it here, but I find it a really limited viewpoint.

    Peter Singer has an explanation of the tragedy of the commons idea which basically goes like this: imagine you are deciding how to get to work, and you can either take the bus or drive your car. The bus might be the best choice from the "collective" point of view for various reasons, let's say pollution or whatever, some sort of "intrinsic good", but you prefer your car. You don't have to walk to the bus stop or wait for the bus, you already pay for the car anyway because you need it for other activities, and it's private and overall just more enjoyable. So you drive your car. So does everyone else in your suburb, for the same reasons, so the road is choked with traffic and it takes twice as long to get to work as it would if everyone just took the bus. So you decide to stop driving and take the bus, but everyone else is still driving so it makes no difference. It takes just as long to get to work and you have all the other disadvantages of the bus. So you say **** it, take your car every day, and spend an hour every morning sitting in traffic, and glare at everyone else on the road, knowing that if they just had a bit of perspective everything could be better. The only real solution to this problem is some sort of collective action - it doesn't necessarily have to be the state, but it is probably most likely to happen with the government. They can tax fuel to disincentivise driving, or use tax dollars to subsidise bus tickets so people take the bus instead. Or create express bus lanes and use force to ensure that non-buses don't use them so it ends up being faster on the bus. Or any number of other options. But without some sort of collective action, everyone loses even though everyone is acting in their own self-interest.

    This obviously doesn't apply to every situation and isn't a foolproof argument against all libertarian views but it is a real thing and it's a perfectly reasonable, self-interest oriented reason to support a state that prioritises collective interests over individual freedom. And of course there are also actors in this scenario who only take the bus because they don't drive, and they benefit even more from actions to curb the dominance of the driving choice citizens.
    It's cold on the outside they say
    But the cold leaves you clear while the heat leaves a haze

  12. #16077
    Hall of Fame Member harsh.ag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    India
    Posts
    18,243
    Quote Originally Posted by watson View Post
    All ideologies ignore human nature by definition, and then fail because of human nature. It really doesn't matter which one you pick whether it be Christianity, Islam, Socialism, Capitalism and so on.

    In recent years Capitalism has failed spectacularly in the form of the GFC and enviromental destruction on a global scale. Neoliberalism gave us the war in Iraq, the collapse of Democratic Socialism, and the subsequent rise of Populism/Fascism. Without doubt it has failed spectacularly as an ideology as well.

    So currently we are in a rudderless vacuum because we have either degraded, smashed apart, or sold-off most of the old institutions that under-pinned our society. What a bunch of idiots.
    How do you never wonder if things could have been worse if not for those changes? They may not have been, but such certainty is why it's hard to take your ramblings seriously. China becomes so much better in this time period but nah that's just rubbish because who really cares about 1.3 billion people in a non-western country. Some of the policies you hate in some ways contributed to that. How do you not sing praises on that?
    ~ Do you think I care for you so little that betraying me would make a difference ~

  13. #16078
    Global Moderator Spark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    A Blood Rainbow
    Posts
    54,723
    Quote Originally Posted by Ausage View Post
    Sure, but the "survival" disadvantages are related to its capacity to be implemented, which isn't related to whether it would work or not. The topic started with people asking why someone would support Libertarianism the fact it hasn't been tried isn't a mark against it in that context. It's an interesting contrast to pure Marxism/communism which has been historically easier to implement but very clearly doesn't work.
    If an ideological system can't last in the real world without being forcibly overrun, that surely is "it can't work" by definition?

    I would also strongly, strongly disagree with the last point for the same reason btw.

  14. #16079
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    9,851
    Quote Originally Posted by harsh.ag View Post
    How do you never wonder if things could have been worse if not for those changes? They may not have been, but such certainty is why it's hard to take your ramblings seriously. China becomes so much better in this time period but nah that's just rubbish because who really cares about 1.3 billion people in a non-western country. Some of the policies you hate in some ways contributed to that. How do you not sing praises on that?

    You don't actually believe the propaganda and fake news vomited by the Chinese government do you? The fact is, nothing much has changed politically since Tiananmen Square, and 100s of millions of people live as virtual slaves in a congested, polluted hell hole. The pollution is so bad that it even effects the West Coast of the USA. About a third of the air pollution in San Francisco supposedly comes from the industrial heartland of China.

    Smog In Western U.S. Starts Out As Pollution In Asia, Study Says : The Two-Way : NPR

    Point being, if there is a way of improving the quality of life for Chinese people then the current model is definitely not it.
    Last edited by watson; 01-04-2017 at 05:13 AM.

  15. #16080
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    9,851
    Quote Originally Posted by Ikki View Post
    Ideal(s) exist in libertarianism but they serve to empower the individual and not collectives. Since we are all individuals people do not argue against individual rights, by and large, however we do so with regards to groups (identity politics) all the time and some of us even do it with the misguided belief that it is for the benefit of all.

    Thinking about this issue for many years I have come to the realisation that our differences are largely down to perspective and our misunderstanding of perspective and reality which can be separate and often are. That's why fascists, communists, and all the people in between and on the sides who end up harming more people than they help originate from the same misguided notion that what they are doing is intrinsically good and without debate wish to usher in their goodness. This extends to you regardless of whether you are a marxist or even someone like me who claims to be a libertarian. We all have to be vigilant to define ourselves and our reality properly. Simply stating that there is a collective responsibility as a given isn't living in reality.

    As you read this, breath, eat and sleep you may appreciate that your consciousness controls your body. Living in our delusions we try our best to widen our influence and we spin narratives to justify them and others sometimes follow. We will spin these narratives as wide and as far as possible and that we have governments we don't trust yet think we need is precisely the kind of cognitive dissonance you have to have for your own self to be an unwitting cog in someone else's delusion. You are responsible for yourself because your consciousness has inherited no other body to control. That is reality. From there we can build solutions living in reality, and one of them is the free exchange of ideas, as well as goods and services. This will then become a mechanism for the rest of society as we face ideas and we determine their utility based on how many individuals engage or disengage with them. Even if someone is misguided, let their delusion be their own downfall or those that follow the same line of thinking. We are so averse to failure without recognising that without the balancing nature of something undesirable occurring, we will not be able to recognise what really is desirable as we will not have a point of reference/comparison. Because only in a delusion can you stave off reality, which is the eventuation that something wrong can/will happen.
    Just to be pedantic, your consciousness doesn't control your body, rather your brain does. All your consciousness does is make you aware of what your brain has already decided to do sometime in the past.

    The idea of your consciousness being the decision maker, and making decisions on behalf of yourself is one of the best and grandest illusions found in Nature. And why at its most fundamental level the theory of Libertarianism is flawed.
    Last edited by watson; 01-04-2017 at 05:48 AM.



Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. The British Politics Thread
    By cover drive man in forum News and Politics
    Replies: 16905
    Last Post: Today, 06:04 AM
  2. Media
    By SirBloody Idiot in forum Cricket Web Tennis
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: 06-08-2011, 07:10 AM
  3. FAQ & Introduction Thread
    By Magrat Garlick in forum Cricket Web Tennis
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 20-06-2011, 12:06 PM
  4. Finally ! A Last Word Thread
    By SJS in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 01-01-2010, 08:42 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •