Journal smittyoneeach's Journal: A Dozen Short Points On The Big Picture 231
I'd just like to respond to a variety of my good interlocutors, briefly, on a swath of topics.
Social:
- Life: begins when the information that defines you is available: conception. You own your own greatness, or not. You don't own the non-greatness of others.
- Gender: is defined by chromosomes. Become the best male or female you can: body, mind, and soul.
- Marriage: has its premise in the production of life. Understood, other variations. But what difference, at some point centuries hence, do they make?
- Freewill: if you're arguing it doesn't exist, then why're you even reading this?
- Unscalability: people don't scale. The larger the group you consider, the less powerful assertions you can make about them, without stooping to the crudest stereotypes. There is an inverse square law afoot: the family is strongest, followed by the clan, followed by professions, citizenship, etc. This is why if you want to move a large number of people in an organized way, you have to thrash their individuality and put them in a uniform. This is why the one-size-fits-all theories of Progress are dying. To the extent it can be said to work empirically, the one-size-fits-all of Jesus Christ is the best you've got, and even Christians don't agree on what that means.
Political:
- Conservativism: is based upon the Lockean notion of the individual.
- Progressivism: has roots in a strange intellectual love affair between Rousseau and Marx. Whatever misguided idealism informed the original Progressives, it's all a steaming loaf of debt and ersatz aristocracy now, Republican and Democrat.
- Republicans: born to end slavery, the elite of the GOP is fungible with the Democrats, perpetuating debt slavery.
- Federal Reserve: the power to inflate the currency urinates all over the spirit of the Constitution, granting too much power to un-elected knobs. The lack of will from either branch of the Ruling Class even to audit, much less reform this beast is telling.
- ObamaCare: is the legislative/economic equivalent of the Doomsday Machine from Star Trek. In true Progressive fashion, it accomplishes the opposite of its title. This is a time, to quote Iron Maiden, to "Die With Your Boots On." Can this bureaucratic D&D Black Pudding be stopped? Hopefully; my metaphorical blender just 'sploded.
Historical:
- Slavery: sucked. It had a variety of social and economic causes, including false notions of inferiority based upon extrinsic characteristics. However, the guilt for slavery is owned by those who actually held slaves, just as the guilt for Jim Crow is owned by its perpetuators in the modern Racism Idustrial Complex. I forgive those who try to pin such guilt on me, in the hope that, if forgiveness spreads, growth can occur.
- Foreign Policy: if you think about it, our Constitution is defensive in nature: some powers were delegated by the States to a Federal government for mutual protection. Progress has begotten the Team America World Police concept since Bretton Woods. That it ran for 50 years needs to be seen as about as good as it gets. What follows is totally unclear.
So, there you have it. These are my positions, arrived at slowly, and not given to much adjustment. I'm not accepting blame, nor do I think I've blamed anyone in particular. I don't even blame Obama for ObamaCare. Our situation sucks, and it sucked Cthulhu right out of R'lyeh. If Barack had stayed a stoned Hawaiian, tearing tickets at Jack Johnson concerts or whatever, they'd've polished another tool for his role. So don't over-credit the putz. Our decadent point in American history has plenty of sad little Commies who could've done the job. Our task is to realize the dream of the Founders, with an informed, educated electorate.
Political mumbojumbo (Score:2)
Progressivism: has roots in a strange intellectual love affair between Rousseau and Marx. Whatever misguided idealism informed the original Progressives, it's all a steaming loaf of debt and ersatz aristocracy now, Republican and Democrat.
You seem to be confusing the progressive acts in this country - which are few, far between, and not particularly progressive - with the progressive ideals of freedom through opportunity. That said, even the progressive ideals are not Marxist in any meaningful way, they are primarily seeking to see that people actually are able to realize their full potential regardless of which vagina they crawled out of.
Republicans: born to end slavery, the elite of the GOP is fungible with the Democrats, perpetuating debt slavery.
I'm not sure how you could possibly come up with "born t
Re: (Score:2)
I'll reply to this to include that there are a few people out there whose conservative politics considerably predates John Locke and his notion of the individual. And to point out that John Locke is considered "the father of classic liberalism", and therefore is not a conservative.
Re: (Score:1)
Don't believe any of it. He, they actually, are every bit as authoritarian as you say you are. The rights of the individual, such as access to uncontaminated natural resources, which includes land and rights of way, are and always will be subservient to the market collective and religious indoctrination. If he believed in freedom, that is what he would actually advocate. In his ideal world, we wouldn't need the government facade to hide the businessman's iron fist.
Re: (Score:2)
What matters isn't if it is a paradox, but whether it is a dox.
There is no problem with authoritarianism if the morality it teaches is connected to reality instead of trying to enrich a minority. The market collective is irrational.
Re: (Score:1)
Well, until authority can be shown to be above and beyond nature, it's only provable 'moral' imperative is 'might makes right'. It is the denial and defiance of authority that will stop people from killing each other. The market collective may or may not be rational, but it is most logical and natural, as any collective must be. It is just another method of aggregating power and advantage employed by the naked ape.
Re: (Score:2)
Denial and defiance of authority directly causes people to kill each other.
Re: (Score:2)
Orders to kill only come when power is threatened.
Re: (Score:2)
So therefore you don't believe in restraining murderers. Good to know.
Re: (Score:2)
No need. The Noble Savage had his own form of civilization. Decentralized, but still quite highly developed.
Re: (Score:2)
"The only righteous authority beyond the animal world is one over one's self."- Sound familiar? Taken all the way, that means you have no right to object to a murder committed by somebody else *at all*.
Re: (Score:2)
To fustakrakich, law is just an authoritarian attempt to restrain the individual. The only righteous government, is the government limited to the space between your own ears. Doesn't matter what anybody else does.
Re: (Score:2)
Under "The only righteous authority beyond the animal world is one over one's self." there can be no law that escapes your own head- you can't write laws to cover other people, and there is no real restraint on your own behavior.
Re: (Score:2)
Self-restraint is an illusion. I've yet to meet any human capable of it.
Re: (Score:2)
"Murder is a form of coercive authority. Of course I object."
That's YOUR belief. By your own beliefs against coercive authority, you have NO right to force that belief on to anybody else.
" If you object to murder, you must object to *all* murder, including war, and other forms of murder by the state. "
That's what the bumper sticker on my car says. No war, no abortion, no poverty, no death penalty, no euthanasia, and no racism. [wordpress.com] But we weren't talking about authoritarians like me, we were talking about you
Re: (Score:2)
Teaching is a form of force,. and requires discipline if the student is to be taught. Students that are not disciplined, don't learn.
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't have to be stealing or killing. It can be other antisocial behavior that you find profitable, like taking drugs grown at gunpoint in South America.
Re: (Score:2)
Once again, that is not SELF-RESTRAINT- that's an outside agency doing some restraining for you.
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt it. Very strongly. There's money to be made even in legalized drugs, and in absence of regulation, guns always rule.
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody has self discipline. Discipline in the classroom flows from the teacher, as can easily be seen in any high school in the United States when comparing classrooms.
Re: (Score:2)
When you fast, it is by God's Grace that you are able to fast. So no.
Re: (Score:2)
How can something be logical and natural and be considered irrational?
In fact, logical and natural is my definition of rational.
My question is what makes you think the guns are going to disappear merely by legalizing the drugs without removing the guns by force?
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't voluntary acceptance of discipline a bit of an oxymoron?
I *believe* in free will, but I have no proof that it exists. All evidence suggests that what free will exists, is shaped by outside experience.
Re: (Score:2)
9 billion. But all 9 billion names, refer to the same God, seen from different perspectives.
Re: (Score:2)
Without God, Pavlov is all that is left.
Re: (Score:2)
My question isn't why should you acquiesce to the authority of God. My question is why should I acquiesce to the authority of fustakrakich.
It isn't my God who started this war you see, it is people like you.
Re: (Score:2)
You're the one asking for conformity here- conformity with your lifestyle. I'm just wondering why we should conform to your interpretation of the word "liberty", which seems to be unique.
Re: (Score:1)
will be subservient to the market collective and religious indoctrination
"market collective" is an oxymoron, but bonus points for skillfully conflating the chemical solution with the precipitate.
"religious indoctrination" is true for some cases, e.g. cults.
In his ideal world, we wouldn't need the government facade to hide the businessman's iron fist.
So you're accusing me of espousing anarcho-libertarianism, then? Regret I hadn't been clearer, I suppose.
Re: (Score:1)
Market collective is not an oxymoron. It's all about economies of scale. If it were otherwise we all would be able to afford and buy individually designed cars and appliances, made to taste. And people that have to work would be paid a livable wage. The individual is only considered as part of the aggregate. By himself he is less than useless, a complete liability, unless he works for free. In today's collective we have the top 20% income bracket moving 80% of the market. The rest of us aren't even noticed,
Re: (Score:1)
On the one hand, I guess you're demonstrating the creativity you seem to think impossible in the marketplace.
On the other, I almost always suspect you're peeing in the intellectual pool, as here. Your precise purpose, while not clear, probably isn't good, judging from history.
Re: (Score:2)
"Classic liberalism" is, by today's standards, conservatism.
Re: (Score:2)
Funny, because by today's standards, your classical conservative is a Kenyan marxist.
Re: (Score:2)
False. (ProTip: if you're going to lie, you should make your lie plausible.)
Re: (Score:2)
And if you're going to call something a lie, you ought to at least have some shred of refutation.
But that's just not in you, is it, pudge?
The 18th century conservatism of Adams and Burke is nowhere to be found in the cheap grifters that call themselves conservatives today. Burke's writings on radicalism and revolution probably have had more influence on today's liberals than on hucksters like Ted Cruz or Mark Levin. At least Burke had a basic dedication to honesty.
Re: (Score:2)
And if you're going to call something a lie, you ought to at least have some shred of refutation.
False. I ought to refute arguments, not baseless assertions.
The 18th century conservatism of Adams and Burke is nowhere to be found in the cheap grifters that call themselves conservatives today.
Yes, you're doing it again. You're providing baseless assertion, and you're lying.
Burke's writings on radicalism and revolution probably have had more influence on today's liberals than on hucksters like Ted Cruz or Mark Levin.
Yawn. Provide an argument. Provide something to refute. Say what it is about Burke's writings that differ from modern conservatives, or is similar to modern liberals. Go ahead. Quote from Burke talking about basing society on property and commerce, and show how it is more akin to liberals than conservatives. If you want me to provide a shred of refutation, the
Re: (Score:2)
So what is a traditional monarchist?
Re: (Score:2)
So what is a traditional monarchist?
Someone who prefers a monarchy. Shouldn't you know that?
Re: (Score:2)
No, I mean, on the scale of liberal to conservative, where does the traditional monarchist fit?
Re: (Score:2)
Good question.
IIRC the left and right dichotomy dates to the french assembly. The merchants and incipient capitalist class on the left, the traditional aristocracy on the right. Both were opponents of royal power, so I guess the monarchist has to be off the scale somewhere.
Re: (Score:2)
Monarchists can be either left or right. While Arker is correct about the aristocrats being on the right, so too were many merchants, just like today: those that wanted the government to be the servants of capitalists and grant favors or be generally activist were on the left, while those that wanted a more laissez-faire model were on the right. And yes, they were all opposed to centralized monarchical power. But that said, a monarchist could be in favor of more or less activism in the government, more o
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
It is if you're a traditionalist. The only good liberty is the right to do good, not the right to do evil.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd be satisfied with "don't disobey God".
Re: (Score:2)
Progressivism: has roots in a strange intellectual love affair between Rousseau and Marx. Whatever misguided idealism informed the original Progressives, it's all a steaming loaf of debt and ersatz aristocracy now, Republican and Democrat.
You seem to be confusing the progressive acts in this country - which are few, far between, and not particularly progressive - with the progressive ideals of freedom through opportunity.
No. He is talking about how the progressivism movement began, which have little to do with "opportunity" and are mostly about fairly extreme socialism.
Republicans: born to end slavery, the elite of the GOP is fungible with the Democrats, perpetuating debt slavery.
I'm not sure how you could possibly come up with "born to end slavery".
Again, that was the explicit point of the beginning of the movement: to end slavery.
Federal Reserve: the power to inflate the currency urinates all over the spirit of the Constitution, granting too much power to un-elected knobs. The lack of will from either branch of the Ruling Class even to audit, much less reform this beast is telling.
Do you realize why the Federal Reserve is headed by "un-elected knobs"? It's because they aren't a government agency.
False. It is. All claims that it isn't are pure fiction. It was created by the government, it is regulated by the government, it's within the Executive Branch, its leadership is appointed by the President, and so on.
The government has a little bit of influence over the fed by appointing its chair but that is pretty much the extent of the relationship.
You mean other than the massive regulation over it by the
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Progressivism: has roots in a strange intellectual love affair between Rousseau and Marx. Whatever misguided idealism informed the original Progressives, it's all a steaming loaf of debt and ersatz aristocracy now, Republican and Democrat.
You seem to be confusing the progressive acts in this country - which are few, far between, and not particularly progressive - with the progressive ideals of freedom through opportunity.
No. He is talking about how the progressivism movement began
In part, he is trying to describe (what he sees as) the start of the progressive movement. Granted, placing it as being rooted in Marxism in any real way is dishonest at best, but that isn't the biggest problem with the statement. By his giving that definition and then not making any suggestion at it being irrelevant he is direct
Re: (Score:2)
your first comment after a long dry spell here
False.
placing it as being rooted in Marxism in any real way is dishonest at best
Nonsense. The movement, begun over 100 years ago, was heavily rooted in a Marxist understanding of the economy and labor. Wilson certainly held those views. Despite your protestations, this continues today. Obama believes -- or claims he does -- in the fundamental conflict between labor and owners, that owners primary gain wealth through exploitation of labor, and that government has all authority and responsibility to regulate owners in any way they see fit, without regard to morality or liberty.
Re: (Score:2)
your first comment after a long dry spell here
False
Your own comment history [slashdot.org] supports my claim. You had last written a comment here in April. Three months is a long dry spell in comparison to the frequency with which you used to post. Furthermore the first comment you posted was in reply to the comment I made.
Being as you couldn't even be honest with your first word in this most recent reply, I don't see any reason to expect that you actually want to have a conversation with me. I keep hoping that maybe someday you will want to be civil, but you keep
Re: (Score:2)
Three months is a long dry spell in comparison to the frequency with which you used to post.
False.
Being as you couldn't even be honest with your first word in this most recent reply
False.
I don't see any reason to expect that you actually want to have a conversation with me.
Translation: "I got my ass handed to me. Again. And I have no rebuttal that won't sound stupid, so I'll resort, as usual, to ad hominem."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I can't force you to acknowledge reality
Yes, but that is not the problem. The problem is you are incapable of actually presenting an argument that backs your view of reality. (ProTip: this is a sign that maybe your view of reality needs adjustment).
You can choose to be petty and hateful
I am neither. Please stop lying. Thanks!
why do you even bother to write messages to me when you don't want to have a discussion? I have never seen someone who wanted to have an actual honest discussion respond in the way that has been your standard M.O. towards me for years now.
You do realize -- don't you? -- that I am the one who made serious arguments to you, and you're the one who responded with ad hominem ... right? I mean, anyone looking at this knows that I am the one engaging in honest conversation, and you're the one who is
Re: (Score:2)
I am the one who made serious arguments to you
No, you did no such thing. You replied with a few half truths, a laundry list of partisan lies, and a collection of insults as well. You have followed this same pattern of condescension, arrogance, and ignorance for years whenever you have found yourself in a conversation with me here on slashdot.
I mean, anyone looking at this knows that I am the one engaging in honest conversation, and you're the one who isn't.
You can insist on living in your own reality, if that is what you want. I don't know why you would expect thinking people to accept it as theirs as well though.
If you were actually capable of honesty, I wo
Re: (Score:2)
I am the one who made serious arguments to you
No, you did no such thing.
You're a liar.
You replied with a few half truths, a laundry list of partisan lies, and a collection of insults as well.
You're a liar. I replied with not a single instance of any of those things.
You have followed this same pattern of condescension, arrogance, and ignorance for years whenever you have found yourself in a conversation with me here on slashdot.
You're lying.
If you were actually capable of honesty, I would recommend you to ask yourself the honest question of what you are trying to accomplish by entering into a discussion where I am present.
This is where you are deluding yourself: my replies to you do not take you into account. They have nothing to do with you. You are not the center of my world. You're barely on its periphery, and I do not do or say anything in particular regards to you. I am simply responding to your comments as they are.
It seems to anger you when I expose your lies
You're a liar on both counts. I rarely if ever get angry on Slashdot, and I don't recall that I've
Re: (Score:2)
I am the one who made serious arguments to you
No, you did no such thing.
You're a liar.
This is exactly why you and I cannot have a conversation, and I am puzzled why you even pretend to want to try. You enter into a discussion with the attitude that your opinion is god's own truth and wholly irrefutable.
You replied with a few half truths, a laundry list of partisan lies, and a collection of insults as well.
You're a liar. I replied with not a single instance of any of those things.
That suggests that you did not read my reply to your reply, where I showed those things to be the case with your reply. I can't force you to go back and read it. I won't even suggest you to re-read it as you just gave strong evidence that you likely haven't read it for a first time yet.
You have followed this same pattern of condescension, arrogance, and ignorance for years whenever you have found yourself in a conversation with me here on slashdot.
You're lying.
A
Re: (Score:2)
You enter into a discussion with the attitude that your opinion is god's own truth and wholly irrefutable.
You're lying. I never, ever, do that. I do nothing less than you: I make assertions that I believe are true. Of course, my assertions are more often backed by facts and reason, but that's beside the point.
That suggests that you did not read my reply to your reply, where I showed those things to be the case with your reply.
False. I read that, and responded to you with more arguments, mostly refuting your claims. Then you replied with no more arguments, but went full frontal ad hominem, and then dishonestly claimed that I was the one who was not wanting to have a discussion.
How do you explain your insistence on putting me on your perma-hate list [slashdot.org], then?
I have no such list. Please stop lying. I hav
Re: (Score:2)
I, for one, hope the two of you have the breakthrough that damn_registrars and I did
Smitty you and I were able to come to a point where we can have actual discussions because we are capable of showing respect for one another in spite of our differences. Don't discredit your own value as a human being by comparing yourself to people who cannot accomplish that.
I would like to see a breakthrough such as what you describe, but I don't have any hope for one to occur in this particular pairing, ever. There are now multiple years of back and forth that indicate there to be no reason to ever
Re: (Score:2)
I, for one, hope the two of you have the breakthrough that damn_registrars and I did, and seek minimize the talking past each other. Neither of you are dummies, in my estimation.
I respond to what is in front of me. That's all I can do. He chooses to go off on personal-attack tangents.
Re: (Score:2)
I am leaning more and more towards the conclusion that someone is just coming around to waste my time, which means I have repeatedly been feeding a troll.
You're lying.
Re: (Score:2)
I am leaning more and more towards the conclusion that someone is just coming around to waste my time, which means I have repeatedly been feeding a troll.
You're lying.
I stated that to be my opinion. My opinion cannot be a lie if I state it to be my opinion. I did not state it to be an irrefutable fact. I am sorry that the distinction between the two appears to confuse you so greatly. My stating my opinion that you appear to be trolling me is no different than someone declaring their opinion that there is a deity of some sort responsible for the state of things; you cannot prove it to be the case one way or the other, it is just an opinion. Opinions are not right or
Re: (Score:2)
I am leaning more and more towards the conclusion that someone is just coming around to waste my time, which means I have repeatedly been feeding a troll.
You're lying.
I stated that to be my opinion.
Yes, you dishonestly stated it to be your opinion.
My opinion cannot be a lie if I state it to be my opinion.
It can be if it is not your opinion. But I'm on to you. You know what you're doing. You know that I gave you a reasonable response [slashdot.org] to your comment to me, and that you responded with pure ad hominem back [slashdot.org], whining about a disagreement over what began as your ad hominem directed at me.
I don't believe you are self-deluded enough to believe that I am the one who took this conversation sideways, that I am the troll, that I am the one out to waste your time. I
Re: (Score:2)
I am leaning more and more towards the conclusion that someone is just coming around to waste my time, which means I have repeatedly been feeding a troll.
You're lying.
I stated that to be my opinion.
Yes, you dishonestly stated it to be your opinion.
Wow, even for you that is a new level of arrogance to claim that you know someone's opinion better than they do. Can you also tell me my birthday, my underwear size, and what color car I like? You claim to know me better than I know myself, so you should have no trouble answering those questions for me.
You know that I gave you a reasonable response
That response was not reasonable. You started with your usual level of arrogance in your first line, later came in with a tidal wave of half-truths, and occasionally peppered in utter bullshit. You then
Re: (Score:2)
arrogance to claim that you know someone's opinion better than they do ... You claim to know me better than I know myself
You're lying. I did no such thing. I am not saying you don't know your opinion, I am saying you are knowingly and intentionally lying about what your opinion is.
You know that I gave you a reasonable response
That response was not reasonable.
You're a liar.
tidal wave of half-truths, and occasionally peppered in utter bullshit
You're a liar. The fact that you cannot address, let alone rebut, my arguments doesn't make them false.
You then closed with ... more insults.
You're a liar. There was not a single insult in there.
You are also wrong that I offered any arrogance, but you could actually believe that. But you cannot believe I insulted you, unless you think "you're lying" -- a true statemen
Re: (Score:2)
You're lying. I did no such thing. I am not saying you don't know your opinion, I am saying you are knowingly and intentionally lying about what your opinion is.
You are stating to know my opinion when I state plainly what my opinion is. Just because your worldview insists otherwise doesn't make it true. You frequently accuse me of lying, and have not yet once been correct when you have made that accusation.
tidal wave of half-truths, and occasionally peppered in utter bullshit
You're a liar. The fact that you cannot address, let alone rebut, my arguments doesn't make them false.
I responded to your statement by pointing out where your assertions fell apart by virtue of being half-truths or lies. You responded by accusing me of lying. Hilarity did not ensue.
Being as a central mechanism of your strategy is accusing people of lyin
Re: (Score:2)
You are stating to know my opinion when I state plainly what my opinion is.
Shrug. It's just my opinion.
You frequently accuse me of lying, and have not yet once been correct when you have made that accusation.
You're a liar. In fairness to me, you must admit that most of the time, I cannot directly back up my accusations, because I am calling your false assertions lies; when you say, for example, that you responded to my claims and showed how they were wrong or lies, it's obvious from reading the discussion that you're lying, but I can't prove a negative: I can only challenge you to prove your claim, which you refuse to do.
But as a different example, you said regulation was reduced u
Re: (Score:2)
Do either of you think that there can be peace between Israelis and their various neighbors (especially the "Palestinians") without forgiveness?
I'm not sure that any side in the conflict is really ready to forgive any other side at this point. Your question though did get me to thinking about this, which is not a topic that generally occupies a lot of my free time in general. I actually suspect that a more workable solution to this would be a three state solution, rather than the two states that are so often proposed. From my vantage point it appears that the treasure here is Jerusalem itself; cultures have fought for it for thousands of years
Re: (Score:2)
Perfectly rational, as is my own screw-em-all solution: they all get one country, one passport, and one capital in Jerusalem.
I'm not entirely sure how you keep them from killing each other with a solution like that.
Alas, these are rational arguments. There is so much history, and both sides are imprisoned thereby.
Indeed when we are discussing a piece of land that has been written about almost as long as the written word has been transcribed on paper, history will always play a role in any decisions made about it. I don't know if you watch much CNN but some time ago I saw them interview Mahmoud Ahmedinejad (so long ago it was probably Larry King doing the interview) and I was surprised to find myself actually agreeing with so
Re: (Score:2)
You're wagging the dog. Money controls government, not the other way around.
You're confused: I never said or implied it was the other way around. You're just saying that the people who control the money, control the government; I didn't contradict that, I am just saying that the President and Congress control the Fed, which controls the money.
Re: (Score:2)
De facto, I suspect there is some truth to what he is telling you.
De jure, you are clearly right of course. Congress created the Fed, quite possibly exceeding its own authority in the process, and Congress may undo them.
How the Fed would deal with a Congress which represented their constituents actively here is an interesting question. Dr.Pauls efforts, starting from a point where he was the only person in all of Congress concerned about this, to the point where he was able to have hearings and some partial
Re: (Score:2)
De facto, I suspect there is some truth to what he is telling you.
De jure, you are clearly right of course. Congress created the Fed, quite possibly exceeding its own authority in the process, and Congress may undo them.
I agree there is some truth to what he is saying, but the part that is bizarre is that he assumes the moneyed interests controlling things are necessarily distinct from the people with the legal authority, that the President is necessarily a puppet rather than the master. There's no reason to assume that.
How the Fed would deal with a Congress which represented their constituents actively here is an interesting question.
Not to me, since the Congress would necessarily have to bend to the shared will of the Congress and President, if they asserted it upon the Fed.
Have you watched the public hearings?
Only a few clips.
Re: (Score:2)
"I agree there is some truth to what he is saying, but the part that is bizarre is that he assumes the moneyed interests controlling things are necessarily distinct from the people with the legal authority, that the President is necessarily a puppet rather than the master. There's no reason to assume that."
I am not sure it is unreasonable to think that the more stable parts of the system, the "deep government" and the big donors and lobbying complexes, collectively bear the same sort of relationship to the
Re: (Score:2)
I am not sure it is unreasonable to think that the more stable parts of the system, the "deep government" and the big donors and lobbying complexes, collectively bear the same sort of relationship to the US President that the Supreme Ayatollah bears to the President of Iran.
That wasn't what I said though. He was the one saying my view -- that, in essence, the President is essentially indistinguishable from the "deep government" -- is unreasonable. If the "deep government" were that powerful, wouldn't they want one of their own in charge, rather than a puppet that had the power to do things they didn't like?
His argument is that the moneyed powers are distinct from the people with the actual legal authority. I am saying there's no reason to assume a difference exists.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Precisely what I am saying [slashdot.org]...
Yes -- as I have been saying -- you didn't actually have a disagreement with what I was saying. You just thought you did.
we both know that it is ultimately the voter who sells his vote to the big money that puts these people into office
False. I've never sold my vote. It is always earned.
We put monied interests in charge of the government, usually for some phony tax 'cut' (republican) or other hand out (democrat).
I don't. And most tax cuts aren't phony ... but they are few, and far between, unfortunately. And yes, many monied interests want tax cuts, but that doesn't remotely imply that tax cuts are bad. Indeed, I think it implies the opposite, if anything at all.
Re: (Score:2)
When it comes to the fed and monetary (or any other, for that matter) policy, the president and congress are middle management, at best.
False.
They don't make policy.
False.
Re: (Score:2)
Eh, whatever. You can keep on believing your grade school civics books if you wish
Yawn. You can blurt out childish insults if you like, but you didn't actually provide an argument against anything I wrote.
Re: (Score:2)
You're making my case for me. Thanks!
Re: (Score:2)
No, I'm really not. You see, I actually made an argument. You followed that up with mere assertion, without even an argument to back it up, let alone evidence. I said you were wrong, and you responded with a complete lack of substance ... and then stuck with it. You win on that scorecard.
Re: (Score:2)
You see, I actually made an argument.
Actually you didn't. Your single word response was, "false", with nothing at all to back it up.
Why are you lying about something right there for all to see? The comment in question [slashdot.org] was full of argument. You responded with no substance. At all. In any of your following comments.
When I did respond with simply "false," it's because you gave an assertion without any argument or evidence backing it up, so I have nothing else to respond with. I am not going to invent an argument or evidence for you, to rebut it.
You believe in theory and ignore the practice of nature at work.
False. (See how this works?)
While we all have the evidence in black and white, on paper, of all the laws on the books designed for the sole benefit of major 'contributors', which includes the gangsters who sell controlled substances.
It is false that this, in any way, argues against anything I h
Re: (Score:2)
What I say is self evident.
You're obviously lying. Look, if you don't want to back up your claims, don't. But don't pretend that you don't have to. It just makes you look dishonest and stupid.
In your link you ... completely remove the corrupt human (animal) element that permeates all authoritarian systems
You're lying.
you refuse to acknowledge the motivation, and the secret wheeling and dealing going on behind closed doors that are the foundation
You're lying.
The people who ran the fed back then are the ones who demanded that congress create it and to put them in command.
False.
And they tell congress and the president what the rules will be.
False.
It's like the 'Obamacare' thing. It is government regulation written by the insurance industry.
So you admit you're wrong about it all? Because while the law was largely written by the insurance industry, it still needed Congress and the President to agree to it, and Congress and the President put in stuff the insurance industry don't like (for example, making expensive "Cadillac" plans illegal).
I
Re: (Score:2)
...the government has the final say in both cases.
I won't say you're lying because you seem to believe that is true
Also, because you can't back up your assertion that it is false.
I do know with absolute certainty that you are wrong
You're lying. Whether to me or yourself, I do not know, but you cannot possibly know it with absolute certainty, not when you don't even have any evidence to even to begin to make a case on Slashdot.
Your entire demeanor is that of simple biological reaction to your environment colored by your culture and upbringing.
You're a liar.
The bizarre thing is that you seem to be pathological in your lies. I mean, it's transparently obvious to everyone that you can't even begin to back up your claims -- not even with an argument, let alone evidence, as you've provided
Re: (Score:2)
Again, you're not fooling anyone.
Re: (Score:2)
That you think I'm trying can only mean you are the fool, and are being fooled by the thing you so vigorously defend
False.
You have to save face
False.
The facts
So you DO have facts? Why haven't you given them, then? Is it because it is "self evident"? But if so, why bother even having facts, or even saying you have them and not providing them, if you don't need them? Why not just say "my self-evident claim" instead of "the facts"?
Re: (Score:2)
I never stopped laughing.
Re: (Score:2)
Honestly, at this point -- where you have not provided facts because you say it's self-evident, and yet you refer to these mythical facts to make your case -- you cannot believe anyone believes you have any facts. Can you just explain why, under that circumstance, you continue to play make-believe?
Re: (Score:1)
The essential issue I have with collectivist notions is that, in chemical terms, they seem to contend that the molecule precedes the atom.
The silliness of saying the group precedes the individual wouldn't be as economically devas
Re: (Score:1)
..the federal government was deeply involved in all of those decisions you're referring to.
Heh, puppets on a string, doing what they are told, by the people who "financed" each of them into their position, and can easily have them taken out. So, waddya got? Old money vs. New Money...
Disagreements (Score:2)
Gender: is defined by chromosomes. Become the best male or female you can: body, mind, and soul.
Sex is defined by chromosomes. Gender is defined by a combination of nature and nurture. What does it mean to be the best male or female you can be, without looking to society?
Marriage: has its premise in the production of life. Understood, other variations. But what difference, at some point centuries hence, do they make?
True, but freedom says they should be allowed to be married if they wish (whether or not government recognizes that, or any other marriages, is a separate question).
Re: (Score:1)
What does it mean to be the best male or female you can be, without looking to society?
Optimization, especially in the spiritual sense, involves rejection of societal confusion.
True, but freedom says they should be allowed to be married if they wish (whether or not government recognizes that, or any other marriages, is a separate question).
I don't dispute, particularly at the federal level, that attempts to legislate behavior are a mixed bag, on their best day. Furthermore, outings like the DOMA put conservatives on the path of embracing statism. Gross boo-boo.
Re: (Score:2)
Optimization, especially in the spiritual sense, involves rejection of societal confusion.
But spiritual growth involves embracing and extending societal confusion. It isn't efficient, but it's worthwhile.
Re: (Score:1)
Whoa! Kwai Chang Caine lives!
Re: (Score:1)
Marriage: has its premise in the production of life...
True
No, that's false. The original premise of marriage is the peaceful transfer of property. The reproduction of life, aside from survival of the species, is to keep it in the family. And the religious angle didn't enter into it until the church became the state a few short thousands of years ago. And yes, all governments should be forced into recognizing "non-traditional" marriage contracts amongst humans (seeing that non-humans can't give consent) as a recognition of inheritance and visitation rights that all
Re: (Score:2)
Marriage: has its premise in the production of life...
True
No, that's false.
False.
The original premise of marriage is the peaceful transfer of property.
Nope. The premise of the union itself is production of life. The premise of the social institutions around marriage, including the laws and customs, is largely about property. But that comes after.
And the religious angle didn't enter into it until the church became the state a few short thousands of years ago.
Nonsense. Religion was an inherent part of the marriage unions and customs long before the church became the state.
... all governments should be forced into recognizing "non-traditional" marriage contracts amongst humans ...
False. The Amish should feel perfectly free to not recognize gay marriages, for example.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll jump in (Score:2)
I actually disagree with a lot of this, to one degree or another, and for whatever it's worth.
Re: (Score:1)
Your take on marriage is a bit "modern", to say the least. The real deal behind it is how much land a family can accumulate without having to fight a war. Something that made polygamy very advantageous, until all the bickering made it unworkable. I mean, really, imagine having 20 or 30 sets of in-laws.
Re: (Score:2)
It's really not 'modern' at all, again, this pattern that's been pushed as 'traditional' was essentially unheard of in this country before WWI, and only after WWII did it really become the dominant pattern.
Before that, the typical home was larger, the typical household larger, and children were the beneficiaries. It was not unusual to find three generations together, it was unusual NOT to find that. This means more adults to provide for them, materially and otherwise, and greatly reduces their chances of be
Re: (Score:2)
"And regardless of 'climate change' you should take a hard stand against contaminating our resources. Emptying your piss pots onto the street should be avoided."
Being a bit skeptical of the current 'climate change' dogma myself, I would point out that it is quite possible to agree with this and still have no use for the recommendations of global warmers. All this focus on 'carbon' leaves real pollution somewhat under the radar, and that's a shame.
Re: (Score:2)
Well from the inside, we understand that we have freewill when we make decisions, when our bodies react to our thoughts. Occasionally, in cases that are typically considered 'mental illness' (but may be understood quite differently) we may feel this is not true - we may see our body moving without it being our conscious will, but those are exceptional cases.
On the other hand, from the outside, if I can predict your responses well enough to treat you as a machine, to do x in order to elicite y, then freewil
Re: (Score:2)
"Kind of stunning. Whatever cosmological theory one would set forth had better balance the notion of omniscience with "if ye will receive it"."
I dont see any problem there. Your choice to receive or not - but your creator would be able to predict your choice ahead of time.
Marriage (Score:2)
Marriage: has its premise in the production of life. Understood, other variations. But what difference, at some point centuries hence, do they make?
So then if you place the premise of marriage as being to create children, do you then not have an opposition to polygamy? After all, that can produce a lot of children. And how about incestual relationships? You didn't specify healthy children...
That said, the topic many people are discussing regarding marriage is what the government should or should not recognize. Please, for the sake of posterity, clarify your stance again on this. You've almost certainly said it before, but just for the
Also re: slavery, republicans (Score:2)
I have a little perspective on that to share as well.
Let me say that my family has been Republican since the 1850s and one of my twice-great grandfathers was a Republican candidate before Lincoln. Same man served in the Confederate Army until being wounded and discharged, and then continued in the Virginia Home Guard until the end of the war.
I dont think the Republican party, or any other significant group in the USA at the time, wanted to end slavery in the sense we think of it today. Both sides of the mai