The American Politics thread

[Spikey]

Originally Posted by Jono

KFC ordered to pay $8m to brain-damaged girl

I assume this is Ikki's utopia?? Allow brain damage to occur, and then have the court ensure the restaurant pays damages?

this is what happens when you take the chicken twister over the zinger burger

[vic_orthdox]

Nah, guys, we've already asked things re: libertarianism etc. to stop for the time being. If you want, make your own thread, and I might move some posts.

CBF right now, tbf.

[Spikey]

WHO ARE YOU TO TELL ME TO WHAT TO DO a

[Jono]

Originally Posted by vic_orthdox

Nah, guys, we've already asked things re: libertarianism etc. to stop for the time being. If you want, make your own thread, and I might move some posts.

CBF right now, tbf.

Tbf, this KFC judgment being decreed RIGHT NOW was too good to ignore.

[Ikki]

Originally Posted by Burgey

Curiously, Keynesianism ain't dead here. Wasn't dead here in 2008, and isn't now. There's a place for it. And I don't give a **** whether you think otherwise.

Ultimately, the problem has been what you say you've hacked on has not advanced the debate. Moreover you don't hack it on, you substitute it for independent thought of your own. I'm going to tell you what I think (apart from the fact the real World's going to chew you up in about 3 months flat). I don't care whether you agree with it or not. This is an issue in which there are not implicit truths, only opinions.

Notions of a perfect market system is as realistic as the idea of Communist or socialist utopia. Why? Because those of us who've lived a little and aren't busy cutting and pasting this week's socio-economic theory du jour realis the same incentives which drive people to get ahead and innovate also operate to make people want to protect and enhance their position in the market place at the expense of competitors, by fair means or foul. That's why there needs to be regulation. To stop those kinds of excesses.

Tbh, I could have taken a page to say that. I could have used 1,000 words when 100 would do and think myself smart even though those words aren't mine. But I haven't and I won't. Hopefully one day you'll learn to too. You'll need to, else the market will say "who needs this odious buffoon? Give me the kid who thinks for himself, and expresses it cogently and economically. Cos time is money, and my eyes are glazing over".



*btw, the idea of a Nobel Prize for a field of study as subjective and unscientific as economics is deplorable.

Communism isn't dead either in terms of existence. In terms of a viable economic philosophy it's long gone. Even Keynesians don't call themselves strictly Keynesians but some other mutation to save face. The only reason it still has prevalence is because it is a perfect excuse to mandate government expansion. Politicians aren't going to give up the golden goose.

There are no notions of a perfect market - that's a strawman. No one thinks the market is perfect and your claim is ludicrous. It is merely that the free market is the best alternative - not that it is perfect. You should know this, but then again, representatives of your side of the argument have shown they don't know much about the opposition's philosophy when berating it. Honestly, it discredit and disqualifies you in this discussion. This is a Spark-like blunder.

Ironically, the more cuckoo notion is Keynesian: that with adjustments/interventions by the government we can stay in a constant boom. If you want to argue that the world is too intricate and complicated, then you wouldn't be on the Keynesian side. They think it's not complicated enough, hence they meddle in it.

Per usual, you haven't given one argument with a point that actually addresses anything you disagree with. You just repeat "it doesn't work because it doesn't work". There are far greater minds than yours, who have been through more than both of us combined, who state opinions contrary to yours. This personal experience argument you have going doesn't cut the mustard in terms of an intelligible debate.

As for your continuously snide remarks: I've looked after my family in running two businesses, a restaurant and a gift store, since I have been in my teens because both my parents suffered back accidents and can no longer work much. This is while studying for a law degree. I already live in the real world; so **** up, thanks.

Originally Posted by Jono

KFC ordered to pay $8m to brain-damaged girl

I assume this is Ikki's utopia?? Allow brain damage to occur, and then have the court ensure the restaurant pays damages?

No, what the example ironically shows is that even with all the government regulations in place it still happened and, unfortunately, will always happen. It doesn't back up your argument at all. It does back up mine, however: that KFC are made to suffer a hefty price and in order to stay away from negative publicity they'll have to make changes.

Again, you can't legislate out harm. This world is no utopia and bad things happen to good people. It is a very sad case and looking at her picture it moves me because it reminds me of my sister. What I'd rather happen is that masses of people boycott KFC for a while and watch them scramble. But, of course, personal responsibility and action is just too much to ask for some. They're only activists when someone else is doing the work. Personally, I will not be touching KFC any more.

[Cevno]

Jimmy Fallon - Slow Jam The News with Barack Obama: Late Night with Jimmy Fallon - YouTube

Only in America..

[Cevno]

[Prince EWS]

[Fusion]

That. Is. Epic.

[Burgey]

Originally Posted by Ikki

Communism isn't dead either in terms of existence. In terms of a viable economic philosophy it's long gone. Even Keynesians don't call themselves strictly Keynesians but some other mutation to save face. The only reason it still has prevalence is because it is a perfect excuse to mandate government expansion. Politicians aren't going to give up the golden goose.

There are no notions of a perfect market - that's a strawman. No one thinks the market is perfect and your claim is ludicrous. It is merely that the free market is the best alternative - not that it is perfect. You should know this, but then again, representatives of your side of the argument have shown they don't know much about the opposition's philosophy when berating it. Honestly, it discredit and disqualifies you in this discussion. This is a Spark-like blunder.

Ironically, the more cuckoo notion is Keynesian: that with adjustments/interventions by the government we can stay in a constant boom. If you want to argue that the world is too intricate and complicated, then you wouldn't be on the Keynesian side. They think it's not complicated enough, hence they meddle in it.

Per usual, you haven't given one argument with a point that actually addresses anything you disagree with. You just repeat "it doesn't work because it doesn't work". There are far greater minds than yours, who have been through more than both of us combined, who state opinions contrary to yours. This personal experience argument you have going doesn't cut the mustard in terms of an intelligible debate.

As for your continuously snide remarks: I've looked after my family in running two businesses, a restaurant and a gift store, since I have been in my teens because both my parents suffered back accidents and can no longer work much. This is while studying for a law degree. I already live in the real world; so **** up, thanks.



No, what the example ironically shows is that even with all the government regulations in place it still happened and, unfortunately, will always happen. It doesn't back up your argument at all. It does back up mine, however: that KFC are made to suffer a hefty price and in order to stay away from negative publicity they'll have to make changes.

Again, you can't legislate out harm. This world is no utopia and bad things happen to good people. It is a very sad case and looking at her picture it moves me because it reminds me of my sister. What I'd rather happen is that masses of people boycott KFC for a while and watch them scramble. But, of course, personal responsibility and action is just too much to ask for some. They're only activists when someone else is doing the work. Personally, I will not be touching KFC any more.

tl; dr.

Stop proving my point ffs.

[Spark]

Originally Posted by Ikki

Communism isn't dead either in terms of existence. In terms of a viable economic philosophy it's long gone. Even Keynesians don't call themselves strictly Keynesians but some other mutation to save face. The only reason it still has prevalence is because it is a perfect excuse to mandate government expansion. Politicians aren't going to give up the golden goose.

There are no notions of a perfect market - that's a strawman. No one thinks the market is perfect and your claim is ludicrous. It is merely that the free market is the best alternative - not that it is perfect. You should know this, but then again, representatives of your side of the argument have shown they don't know much about the opposition's philosophy when berating it. Honestly, it discredit and disqualifies you in this discussion. This is a Spark-like blunder.

Ironically, the more cuckoo notion is Keynesian: that with adjustments/interventions by the government we can stay in a constant boom. If you want to argue that the world is too intricate and complicated, then you wouldn't be on the Keynesian side. They think it's not complicated enough, hence they meddle in it.

Per usual, you haven't given one argument with a point that actually addresses anything you disagree with. You just repeat "it doesn't work because it doesn't work". There are far greater minds than yours, who have been through more than both of us combined, who state opinions contrary to yours. This personal experience argument you have going doesn't cut the mustard in terms of an intelligible debate.

As for your continuously snide remarks: I've looked after my family in running two businesses, a restaurant and a gift store, since I have been in my teens because both my parents suffered back accidents and can no longer work much. This is while studying for a law degree. I already live in the real world; so **** up, thanks.



No, what the example ironically shows is that even with all the government regulations in place it still happened and, unfortunately, will always happen. It doesn't back up your argument at all. It does back up mine, however: that KFC are made to suffer a hefty price and in order to stay away from negative publicity they'll have to make changes.

Again, you can't legislate out harm. This world is no utopia and bad things happen to good people. It is a very sad case and looking at her picture it moves me because it reminds me of my sister. What I'd rather happen is that masses of people boycott KFC for a while and watch them scramble. But, of course, personal responsibility and action is just too much to ask for some. They're only activists when someone else is doing the work. Personally, I will not be touching KFC any more.

That you continue to peddle this ridiculous fiction that somehow I've left the debate because I'm embarrassed by a mistake simply backs my earlier point. No, ffs, I knew exactly what I was saying, I was pointing out a logical inconsistency in your argument.

The reason I left the debate was because continuing seemed as pleasant to me as having open bowel surgery with a stick.

Now, enough.

[smalishah84]

Originally Posted by Cevno

The part about Clinton is so damn hilarious

[Spikey]

Originally Posted by Cevno

where the hell is

[Spikey]

[Ikki]

Originally Posted by Spark

That you continue to peddle this ridiculous fiction that somehow I've left the debate because I'm embarrassed by a mistake simply backs my earlier point. No, ffs, I knew exactly what I was saying, I was pointing out a logical inconsistency in your argument.

The reason I left the debate was because continuing seemed as pleasant to me as having open bowel surgery with a stick.

Now, enough.

I didn't say you left the debate. I said you should leave the debate. Myself, Friedman, other Libertarians and free market proponents rely greatly on the intervention of courts - we're not anarchists - so there is no inconsistency. That kind of mistake is simply unforgivable, especially when you post as if you know enough to make sweeping generalisations. It was and is an embarrassing mistake, moreso because you post so indignantly and refer to ad hominems when you come up short.

Likewise, Burgey, who confused a perfect market for a free market, made a comparable blunder. These are the very basic things you have to know. It does, however, show why he would be indignant about my position before, since he thought the two equated, because to assume any economic model will achieve a perfect market is pure delusion. That's the point about free markets: they may not be perfect, but they're less harmful than models which purport to fix market failures. And with their outcome, it is the representation of consent amongst people in the market...not manipulation from those who would use the power of the market to benefit themselves.

The fact that both of you got it horribly wrong should, at the least, humble you to read more before you question me, as if I do not know what I am talking about.

It's akin to arguing about the greatest cricket batsmen and forgetting Bradman averaged 99.94. They're red flags for you not knowing the subject matter well enough. This is not to say I know everything - economics is not my chosen field of study - but I know enough to argue the subject. With all due respect, you don't.

-----

In other news, Gingrich is out of the race.

The World Today - Newt Gingrich finally quits US presidential campaign 03/05/2012