@Porksandwich all good points. There is corruption and a lot of collusion between government and corporations. Can we consider the possibility that this collusion happens mostly because the role of government is not well defined, because the economy is a grey area, because businesses covet the power politicians have?

I don't see churches fighting over privileges with politicians, not since a clear separation of church and state was established.

I don't see big media networks fighting over censorship rights with politicians, because freedom of speech mostly outlaws censorship by the government.

Do you see where I'm getting at?

The businesses that hold a monopoly, most of the time, hold it because of regulation. If you remove the regulation, you remove the obstacles for competition. The business might still hold the monopoly even for a long while, maybe decades, but any dissatisfaction by consumers is an opportunity for competitors to step in, slowly pushing the monopoly to be more efficient or risk being toppled.

If we dial back regulation, that doesn't mean there won't be any regulation, that the industry will only answer to itself. Regulation will come from consumers, clients, advertisers, consumer groups, unions, shareholders, and competitors. Didn't GoDaddy pay dearly for supporting SOPA? That's a great example of society punishing a business for an unpopular decision.

Besides, we can't consider it unfair for a business to establish a monopoly or a cartel, if we're ok with workers forming a union. That's a double standard because, in essence, they're basically the same thing. I don't judge either to be good or bad, fair or unfair, it's all part of the market and the right for people to freely associate.

You are absolutely right when you say people are held to more standards than just making money, but who establishes those standards? Are there laws dictating that we shouldn't be dicks, that we should never take advantage of others or "negatively impact people"? Those aren't laws, it's social pressure and your reputation that ****regulate**** you to act as a better person.

Let society and people hold businesses to better standards, not laws and politicians.

True. FDR was under great social pressure to make the important changes he did. I don't think we'll see another like him until we are as strong and united as we were back in the day. With all of the recent protests and political action, we are well on our way. >> ^Harzzach:

The time is ripe for another great leader.
We tried that once. Was a bad idea. Try thinking and acting on your own.

>> ^renatojj:

I think we're arguing semantics, what you consider rights of a woman is what I think libertarians would call an entitlement. Not all libertarians are pro-choice, e.g., Ron Paul. Abortion is not a clear-cut issue, there's the right to life involved too. When does life begin and right to life should protect the unborn? etc. Ron Paul doesn't think the federal government should legislate it because it's too controversial (and outside federal jurisdiction anyway).
If every state bans abortion, wouldn't that be the same as banning it at the federal level? I don't think you have an issue with states rights, but with the scenario where all 50 states approve legislation you don't want and it's a reasonable concern. However, wouldn't that be less likely to happen?

Given that libertarians are all about private property rights, what could be more private property than your own body? I get that some people don't like abortion. Fine, don't have one. But to say that "Not all libertarians are pro-choice"; isn't "pro-choice" (i.e. the freedom to make the decision yourself, not to have government interfere) a core libertarian principle?

As to the right to life of the unborn.... there's really no good answer here. An abortion is never a cause for celebration, it's always done as the lesser of two evils. I would say that the right to life of the mother trumps that of the unborn in all cases (i.e. where the mothers life is in danger) and that it should take place as early as possible.

>> ^renatojj:
Look at the NDAA that Obama signed for this year, everyone in America is subject to indefinite detention now. Great. If it were only approved in New York, a lot less people would be subject to this injustice and you could at least avoid it by just staying the hell out of there (besides, such law would likely be overruled for violating the 4th Amendment).

You get no argument from me here, the NDAA is a terrible law. I would actually use it to argue against the right of states to enact laws such as this, as the freedoms it violates should be universal (or constitutional I guess). To turn your argument around. why should only the people in New York have to suffer under it?

>> ^renatojj:
Ok, maybe you can be a christian and believe in evolution. Then I can argue Obama is probably not a very good christian, which doesn't bother me, but means he lacks integrity in his faith, right? He's probably religious for appearance's sake, because America would never vote for a non-christian President. Show me a bible that explains how man evolved from the apes and we're good

It's hard for me to defend this position as I'm an atheist too. All religious people, including Ron Paul, cherry-pick which parts of their holy book to adhere to in their day to day lives. I don't see Ron Paul arguing for the banning of pork or shellfish, yet they are clearly stated to be abominations in the bible. If he can work his way around that, why can't he accept evolution?


>> ^renatojj:
I agree businesses can do evil, but they're more directly accountable for their actions than elected representatives, they seem to have more to lose, and more direct incentives to do good. Besides, the power of businesses is purely financial, whereas governments have money and armies. Give governments less powers over the economy, and businesses will be less likely to lobby and seek leverage from government. That's libertarianism is a nutshell



>> ^renatojj:
The interviewer suggested Ron Paul reject the money to make a statement against the white supremacists, and Ron Paul said, (paraphrasing), "Yes, I disavow that organization and what they stand for, there's my statement". No tacit approval, I don't think he needs to give them money to make his point. Actually, if you think about it, it would be disingenuous of him to give them money after openly declaring that he disavows them, don't you agree?
I admire Ron Paul for his backbone and common sense on this issue, for not bending to social pressure, if he wants to make a statement, he opens his mouth and does it. Giving money back not only contradicts his statement, it's also weak to conform to other people's somewhat self-indulging and irrational expectations. I mean, who in their right mind would give money to white supremacists?

Fair enough.

>> ^renatojj:
I'd like to understand you not wanting to protect certain freedoms. Which one (or more) of these restrictions do you approve of:
a) a business open to the public can't ask someone to leave its property
b) a business open to the public can't select which customers to serve
c) a business open to the public can do both of the above, but not based on certain criteria

Easy C. I'm all for discrimination based on actions or abilities. I disagree with affirmative action (I feel it is patronising to minorities).

Now could this be used by a business to discriminate against an ethnic group on an individual basis? I guess so, but at least it makes it clear that the spirit of the law does not allow this.

>> ^renatojj:
Ron Paul sees the government and the Fed as major oppressors of our freedoms, based on their laws. Freedoms are usually taken away by force, and libertarians will argue that businesses can't take away our freedoms because they can't use force (unless they're criminals), we're not entitled to anything they can give us, and they can't break contracts. I think that's a major source of confusion in a society where, unfortunately, the lines between governments and corporations are blurred

@ChaosEngine I agree with you it wouldn't be nice to see smaller communities abused by state laws, but that's what the constitution is for, it protects individuals from government abuse, both state and federal.

I think we're arguing semantics, what you consider rights of a woman is what I think libertarians would call an entitlement. Not all libertarians are pro-choice, e.g., Ron Paul. Abortion is not a clear-cut issue, there's the right to life involved too. When does life begin and right to life should protect the unborn? etc. Ron Paul doesn't think the federal government should legislate it because it's too controversial (and outside federal jurisdiction anyway).

If every state bans abortion, wouldn't that be the same as banning it at the federal level? I don't think you have an issue with states rights, but with the scenario where all 50 states approve legislation you don't want and it's a reasonable concern. However, wouldn't that be less likely to happen?

Look at the NDAA that Obama signed for this year, everyone in America is subject to indefinite detention now. Great. If it were only approved in New York, a lot less people would be subject to this injustice and you could at least avoid it by just staying the hell out of there (besides, such law would likely be overruled for violating the 4th Amendment).

Ok, maybe you can be a christian and believe in evolution. Then I can argue Obama is probably not a very good christian, which doesn't bother me, but means he lacks integrity in his faith, right? He's probably religious for appearance's sake, because America would never vote for a non-christian President. Show me a bible that explains how man evolved from the apes and we're good

I agree businesses can do evil, but they're more directly accountable for their actions than elected representatives, they seem to have more to lose, and more direct incentives to do good. Besides, the power of businesses is purely financial, whereas governments have money and armies. Give governments less powers over the economy, and businesses will be less likely to lobby and seek leverage from government. That's libertarianism is a nutshell

The interviewer suggested Ron Paul reject the money to make a statement against the white supremacists, and Ron Paul said, (paraphrasing), "Yes, I disavow that organization and what they stand for, there's my statement". No tacit approval, I don't think he needs to give them money to make his point. Actually, if you think about it, it would be disingenuous of him to give them money after openly declaring that he disavows them, don't you agree?

I admire Ron Paul for his backbone and common sense on this issue, for not bending to social pressure, if he wants to make a statement, he opens his mouth and does it. Giving money back not only contradicts his statement, it's also weak to conform to other people's somewhat self-indulging and irrational expectations. I mean, who in their right mind would give money to white supremacists?

I'd like to understand you not wanting to protect certain freedoms. Which one (or more) of these restrictions do you approve of:

a) a business open to the public can't ask someone to leave its property

b) a business open to the public can't select which customers to serve

c) a business open to the public can do both of the above, but not based on certain criteria

Ron Paul sees the government and the Fed as major oppressors of our freedoms, based on their laws. Freedoms are usually taken away by force, and libertarians will argue that businesses can't take away our freedoms because they can't use force (unless they're criminals), we're not entitled to anything they can give us, and they can't break contracts. I think that's a major source of confusion in a society where, unfortunately, the lines between governments and corporations are blurred

Thanks man, same can be said about you, I also really appreciate your civility and open-mindedness. My experience so far is that it's easier to talk Ron Paul with liberals than with neocons lol

I understand the urge to exaggerate the facts when making one's point, but I don't feel we watched the same video, messenger. The stumble on the way out was precisely the result of the smaller lad squirming. Hardly thrown the the ground. I never saw him get hit a single time. I did see him get thrown off the train when he failed to take the hint and tried to get back onto the train.

Social pressure was clearly not working. When you are holding up several hundred people time is of the essence. Especially as you are holding up the next train to come up that same set of tracks, and the next, etc.

Does he deserve to get thrown off the train? Perhaps. I would say probably, but of course none of us know all the facts. Do all the people on the train deserve to be delayed for 5 minutes, the train miss it's slot on the tracks, and then wait another 5 or 10 minutes for the next train to go by before they can continue on their way? Definitely not. Is avoiding bruising his ego worth say 500 minutes of the other commuters' time? I hardly think so.

People have become completely terrified of the concept of even marginal violence. This was much less violent than any of a number of sports I've played, and he had every opportunity to 'opt out' and refused to take them.

That was violent. I don't care if he didn't do any of the things on a particular list of violent acts that you hold, but picking someone out of a chair by the collar is violent, and so are throwing him to the ground and then off a train. And, he did hit him when he tried to get back on the train.

Non-violent solutions include what the ticket checker guy was doing from the start, using social pressure to get him to leave. Another is contacting the police, as @Yogi has suggested. Your personal judgements of this fare-dodger and what you believe he "deserves" aside, getting passengers home a minute or two earlier doesn't warrant this kind of vigilante violence. I hope the big guy gets charged with the assault which he clearly committed.>> ^Quboid:

I think you had a reasonable point in there somewhere - people who resort to violence aren't necessarily good, salt of the earth people. However, the "big man" doesn't hit this entitled little shit. He is physical, but he's not violent.

This kind of social pressure fails for the same reason purity pledges do.

>> ^dag:

For someone who is otherwise such a proponent of democratic principles and liberty I'm surprised that you would rather concentrate disciplinary powers in one person's hands.
And, yes, yes - I am the site owner so I could always come down and blow it all away, so we're just playing. I know. But, there would be a lot more social pressure on me not to interfere, if decisions were meted out fairly without favorotism by the Sift public in some kind of system.
I think I've shown my willingness to let self-rule flourish. And honestly, I'm fascinated by the idea of balancing technology and people to make a more equitable, self-managing community. (even if it's just in our little online niche)


I understand this is a site with rules, and when I voluntarily come here I agree to those rules. So, liberty has little to do with it. And I despise direct democracy especially when administering justice. Democracy has its place, but this isn't one of them.

We don't have an epidemic of rule breakers on here who are also steadfast members. Leave the policing of spammers to the community. Leave the policing of members to the admins.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

For someone who is otherwise such a proponent of democratic principles and liberty I'm surprised that you would rather concentrate disciplinary powers in one person's hands.

And, yes, yes - I am the site owner so I could always come down and blow it all away, so we're just playing. I know. But, there would be a lot more social pressure on me not to interfere, if decisions were meted out fairly without favorotism by the Sift public in some kind of system.

I think I've shown my willingness to let self-rule flourish. And honestly, I'm fascinated by the idea of balancing technology and people to make a more equitable, self-managing community. (even if it's just in our little online niche)

>> ^blankfist:



@NetRunner, see, for me it's not about dag's competence as a king or leader. He's the site owner, so I think by default he needs to take an avid and responsible role in the way punishment is doled out.
We don't have a pressing epidemic of "name callers" on here that we must deputize the community to help dag sift through the Sift Raft™. Banning probies and spammers is one thing, but banning actual contributing members shouldn't be a democratic process. It'll just lead to favoritism.
I propose we use hobbling when someone seems to be on the attack. As soon as an admin gets on they can look into the situation and listen to BOTH sides. I'm sure by that point the community will know all about the offense and already be weighing in and doing amateur sleuthing to get the facts. After that temp bans and perm bans would follow.
We've been on a banning spree in the last two weeks or so, and it's not that some of the offenses weren't valid, it's just a bit reactionary to ban people outright. Especially when we're not asking for testimony before walking people off the plank. Hobble them first. Listen to them. Then decide on punishment.

@blankfist well, that's a little more honest at least than some of your other statements on this topic.

Thing is, which Democratic policies do racists like? I can name the conservative ones racists like pretty easily: strict immigration policy, the abolition of civil rights protections, racial profiling by law enforcement, abolishing food stamps, abolishing welfare, ending affirmative action, opposing sexual discrimination laws, opposing any hint of social pressure to be "politically correct", harassing a black President to prove he was really born in America and not Africa, etc., etc., etc.

It seems to me that if your conscious or unconscious desire is to keep the non-white races down (or simply keep your own race's preferential status), there's not really much to attract you to the Democratic party platform, or liberal ideology generally. I mean, at the root we're looking for a more egalitarian society, so if you want inequality you pretty much have to go with the other team.

I think the Simpsons nailed it with "Fox News: Not Racist, but #1 with Racists!"

PS: I've come to the conclusion that Andrew Jackson should be the Tea Party's hero. Read this and tell me he doesn't sound like a Tea Party dreamboat!

@westy I see where you're coming from, but WoW is genuinely a great game. It does what it does great - it hooks you, and it is FUN. The whole point of wow is to be FUN on a logarithmic scale, first a lot, then less, then less and less. It trains you to work to get the rewards with longer and longer grinds. Everything else is filler. Every little game mechanic is geared towards being yet another hook in the player and it's all predicated on the simple idea of "well, I've gone this far, I can't stop now!" All the little things under the hood, attack tables, stat conversions and yadda yadda are just tools towards the gear grind. PVP combat is also yet another way to get players to grind more gear and also a hook in itself - competition draws out the crowds.

A lot of it depends on what kind of player you are, and the interesting thing is that WoW offers something for just about every type. The only players that are not attracted to the game are the people with a negative attitude before they try it (like I had back in the day) or people who don't like the art direction - they miss the immediate hooks and are usually lost for the game, unless there's social pressure to join with your friends.

Hehe, imagine if L. Ron Hubbard had been a game designer? What a dreadful religion he'd make then.... Zynga, I'm looking at you..

>> ^gorillaman:

I'm suggesting even social pressure to self-censor is harmful.

And I am saying that's horseshit. You have a legal right to be a racist asshole, and say bigoted things and hurl epithets, but a society where that behavior doesn't raise any eyebrows is vastly less civilized than ours.

>> ^gorillaman:
I phrased my last example the way I did to allow more scope than just friends bullshitting with each other.

And my response was that there essentially cannot be any other context where such a thing is socially acceptable.

To you, society should be such that white people can walk up to black people they don't know, call them a nigger, and have both people know and understand the meaning and history of the term, and yet not get upset about it?

You're seriously bent.

I'm suggesting even social pressure to self-censor is harmful.

I phrased my last example the way I did to allow more scope than just friends bullshitting with each other. Whitey could be using it as an insult, with real malice, and Blacko doesn't like it. Now what's our take on this as onlookers? You want to condemn Whitey, despite knowing he isn't motivated by racist sentiment and I don't see that there's cause to do that. Let them have their conversation, and if Passing Black Lady gets offended, that's her problem.

It's interesting how it's almost like people are subconsciously applying the golden mean to their incentives, on average they're slightly biased towards themselves from the middle of their option range.

My gut feeling is the power of social pressure to be a model citizen and to be fair is so strong that it affects most people's judgement even in detached lab experiments where the invigilator may not even be aware of their actions. Perhaps then the detachment of these experiments and the anonymity are enough to merely sway you towards self interest but not completely overturn the conditioning you've been exposed to your whole life.

>> ^therealblankman:

While I am abhorred that anyone in Canada would want to hear Anne Coulter speak, I'm a little embarassed that people who disagree with her (whacko, racist, reactionary, hatred-inciting) point of view were able to bully her off the pulpit. That's kind of like what the Republicans and Tea Party assholes in the US are doing with the Health-Care debate. Shame on us, Canada.


That is exactly the way social pressure is supposed to work. It is ridiculous to expect people to stand by and do nothing while a idiot tries to convert other people to idiots. You stand up and say no. Not in my town. And if enough towns do the same, that person is eventually marginalized and they disappear.

The tea baggers were successful because they were organized idiots who overwhelmed the normal people who were not prepared. I suspect that in the future there will be (actual) grass roots organizations who will send out their own groups to dilute or freeze out the baggers.