>> ^blankfist:
Well, I'm convinced by his obvious nonpartisan explanation. Where do I sign for this wonderful Utopian public option?


hahahah lol.

Of course he is right and your deluded, but whatever, the rest of the free world is retarded of course.

Well, I'm convinced by his obvious nonpartisan explanation. Where do I sign for this wonderful Utopian public option?

Ha! Ian Birrell's entire article fails to actually paint out what problems the NHS has been facing over the last couple of years with the Blair government, with its obsessive need to impose middle level management systems to create a target based system of health care. A recommendation straight from the private sector. The problem is funding directly into doctors and facilities. I would love to hear how his child's condition which is rare and obscure would have been address in the US.

Furthermore your second paragraph is nothing but shrill capitalistic promotionism, health care is not a commodity and shouldn't be treated as such. 1/3 of every health care dollar in the US is spent on red tape with the private insurance. Most people can't afford private insurance. Yet somehow you would like to believe that they are taken care of by charity! HA! and you say a single payer system is Utopian?

Every other developed western nation has a healthcare system I don't see apocalypse raining down on them.

America can fight wars but it can't take care of its own people. HILARIOUS.

I asked a question about which country had superior health care to the USA's. It wasn't properly answered, and I don't expect it to be in a VS post.

There are a lot of factors socialists leave out of the equation: national population, rate of taxation, medical innovation, overall quality of care, number of doctors per 10K people. Per Pennypacker's riposte, how can anything be properly measured when a dirty mattress on the floor of a Cuban hospital counts as "free medical care"?

Almost 90% of Americans are satisfied with their pre-any-reform health care. And for the socialists among us, we already have Medicare and -caid, both already RIFE with annual fraud and abuse and going insolvent. American emergency rooms cannot turn anyone away, so Mexican ambulances will race across the border to get to our hospitals. Hospital after hospital is drained by illegals; the federal mafia does not reimburse these hospitals and they go bankrupt.

There is no justifiable argument for MOAR government anywhere except in socialist utopians' fantasies.

Poor Uncle Ron, living in a 19th century utopian fantasy world.

>> ^blankfist:
I think we need health care "reform". But, we're looking in the wrong places for the answer. Currently we think it's A) corporations or B) government that should supply all the answers for us.
That's the problem. We need to get government out of it so smaller businesses can compete and offer us something of higher quality.


My question is, what would a bill that steers things in that direction actually say? On the surface of it, I don't have an issue with that, but a desired outcome isn't the same as a plan for how to achieve it.

Edit: After writing the post below this one, it occurs to me that the Obama plan actually matches a lot of what you're looking for. The idea is that they're going to set up individual insurance "exchanges". People who do not receive coverage from their employer will be able to pick from participating plans offered by private insurers. There will be new regulatory requirements on those plans (like no dropping or denying people on the basis of health), and subsidies offered to people below a certain income level. The public option would go there as well, as just another plan offered in the exchange. The public option would essentially be repackaged Medicare insurance that charges a premium, without direct taxpayer funding (though you are free to use the subsidy to pay for a portion of the public option's premium).

This is coupled with mounting pressure for eliminating or reducing the tax exemptions on employer provided plans, which would no doubt have the effect of pushing more people into the exchanges, especially if it was eliminated outright without an employer mandate (which is at hypothetically possible, politically speaking).

Another option that I think you guys might be willing to go along with (but that Congress would never, ever pass), is Brad DeLong's unrealistic, impractical, utopian plan.

DeLong's plan sounds to me like something a Democratic/Libertarian 2-party congress could hypothetically reach compromise agreement on.

Wow. Sounds too good to be true! Here's how to order! Print money out of thin air to pay for everyone's health care. When the currency is worthless, who cares? Our grandchildren will just have to figure out a new plan for themselves. Fuck them. They're not born yet, and we're a bunch of myopic selfish pricks.

No doubt we need health care reform, but this sounds like utopian wand waving to me. If the idea is to have government force insurance companies to give policies to people with preexisting conditions, then it's no longer insurance, because they're not "insuring" your health, we're forcing them to pay for your health care plan. That means premiums for everyone will skyrocket, because it will be a health spending account versus insurance. If by some magical reason they don't raise premiums, then government is subsidizing it which means we still pay, but worse we mortgage our grandchildren with debt. Selfish.

Also, whether someone is unemployed or not shouldn't matter when purchasing "insurance", because it's silly to think employers must offer health insurance. Should they offer car insurance next? What about fire insurance? Why is it the employer's responsibility to offer that? It's all silly. But instead of addressing this problem directly and bringing about true reform, it feels as if the Dems and Repubs want to place band-aid fixes on everything. This is all utopian nonsense that simply will not work.

What about the government/society that celebrates victimhood, creates dependency and makes people weaker?

Bold words for someone who frequently flaunts his own "victimhood."

My "consumer complaints" involve the governmental destruction of natural rights that exist no matter who's in charge: free speech, a right to self-defense (firearms) and a right to keep most of what is earned (labor).

These same rights are also your rights, so my arguments are also on your behalf.

Do not confuse enumerated rights with fake utopian rights like "free" health care, housing, transportation, jobs, etc.

Admit it. You depend on the poor. Without them, who would you kick?

I demand no more of "the poor" than anyone else: obey laws, avoid self-destructive behavior, maximize what abilities you have and strive to better yourself. Be willing to seek help but don't expect a handout, or the government to forcibly take from others on your behalf.

You underestimate the value of human life, and overestimate how very little it takes to actually improve these people's lives.

A good guess, but wrong. Allow me to risk being wrong and ask: doesn't a liberal underestimate the value of human life when the humans in question are wealthy? Do they not assume that all wealthy (or even middle class) were born into privilege and never worked a day for what they have? And do not liberals also assume that these wealthy deserve injustice because "they can afford it"?

Doesn't the liberal underestimate the capacity of people to take care of themselves?

With the welfare state comes the entitlement mentality, which is bottomless, while the resources available are not.

Remember how Reagan took an axe to mental health care? This is the end result.

Contrary to popular belief, there were homeless people before Reagan. The homeless issue is decidedly more complex than blaming any one factor, philosophy or person.

Now you can wear Star Trek "Utopian society" clothes.

^It's not utopian to believe in limited government and more individual liberty, it's how our nation was founded and run for a long, long time. No one is saying the system is perfect, by any means. Freedom is dangerous.

It is utopian to believe, however, that a monolithic government taking more-and-more from our income will take care of us without corruption. Animal farm, anyone?

I am posting the preface in its entirety, as I think it touches on most socialistic arguments put forth here. If this preface intrigues you, by all means...read on.

"It is a matter of dispute whether, prior to the middle of the nineteenth 15 century, there existed any clear conception of the socialist idea—by which is understood the socialization of the means of production with its corollary, the centralized control of the whole of production by one social or, more accurately, state organ. The answer depends primarily upon whether we regard the demand for a centralized administration of the means of production throughout the world as an essential feature in a considered socialist plan. The older socialists looked upon the autarky of small territories as 'natural' and on any exchange of goods beyond their frontiers as at once 'artificial' and harmful. Only after the English Free-Traders had proved the advantages of an international division of labour, and popularized their views through the Cobden movement, did the socialists begin to expand the ideas of village and district Socialism into a national and, eventually, a world Socialism. Apart from this one point, however, the basic conception of Socialism had been quite clearly worked out in the course of the second quarter of the nineteenth century by those writers designated by Marxism as "Utopian Socialists." Schemes for a socialist order of society were extensively discussed at that time, but the discussion did not go in their favour. The Utopians had not succeeded in planning social structures that would withstand the criticisms of economists and sociologists. It was easy to pick holes in their schemes; to prove that a society constructed on such principles must lack efficiency and vitality, and that it certainly would not come up to expectations. Thus, about the middle of the nineteenth century, it seemed that the ideal of Socialism had been disposed of. Science had demonstrated its worthlessness by means of strict logic and its supporters were unable to produce a single effective counter-argument.

It was at this moment that Marx appeared. Adept as he was in Hegelian dialectic—a system easy of abuse by those who seek to dominate thought by arbitrary flights of fancy and metaphysical verbosity—he was not slow in finding a way out of the dilemma in which socialists found themselves. Since Science and Logic had argued against Socialism, it was imperative to devise a system which could be relied on to defend it against such unpalatable criticism. This was the task which Marxism undertook to perform. It had three lines of procedure. First, it denied that Logic is universally valid for all mankind and for all ages. Thought, it stated, was determined by the class of the thinkers; was in fact an "ideological superstructure" of their class interests. The type of reasoning which had refuted the socialist idea was "revealed" as "bourgeois" reasoning, an apology for Capitalism. Secondly, it laid it down that the dialectical development led of necessity to Socialism; that the aim and end of all history was the socialization of the means of production by the expropriation of the expropriators—the negation of negation. Finally, it was ruled that no one should be allowed to put forward, as the Utopians had done, any definite proposals for the construction of the Socialist Promised Land. Since the coming of Socialism was inevitable, Science would best renounce all attempt to determine its nature.

At no point in history has a doctrine found such immediate and complete acceptance as that contained in these three principles of Marxism. The magnitude and persistence of its success is commonly underestimated. This is due to the habit of applying the term Marxist exclusively to formal members of one or other of the self-styled Marxist parties, who are pledged to uphold word for word the doctrines of Marx and Engels as interpreted by their respective sects and to regard such doctrines as the unshakable foundation and ultimate source of all that is known about Society and as constituting the highest standard in political dealings. But if we include under the term "Marxist" all who have accepted the basic Marxian principles—that class conditions thought, that Socialism is inevitable, and that research into the being and working of the socialist community is unscientific—we shall find very few non-Marxists in Europe east of the Rhine, and even in Western Europe and the United States many more supporters than opponents of Marxism. Professed Christians attack the materialism of Marxists, monarchists their republicanism, nationalists their internationalism; yet they themselves, each in turn, wish to be known as Christian Socialists, State Socialists, National Socialists. They assert that their particular brand of Socialism is the only true one—that which "shall" come, bringing with it happiness and contentment. The Socialism of others, they say, has not the genuine class origin of their own. At the same time they scrupulously respect Marx's prohibition of any inquiry into the institutions of the socialist economy of the future, and try to interpret the working of the present economic system as a development leading to Socialism in accordance with the inexorable demand of the historical process. Of course, not Marxists alone, but most of those who emphatically declare themselves anti-Marxists, think entirely on Marxist lines and have adopted Marx's arbitrary, unconfirmed and easily refutable dogmas. If and when they come into power, they govern and work entirely in the socialist spirit.

The incomparable success of Marxism is due to the prospect it offers of fulfilling those dream-aspirations and dreams of vengeance which have been so deeply embedded in the human soul from time immemorial. It promises a Paradise on earth, a Land of Heart's Desire full of happiness and enjoyment, and—sweeter still to the losers in life's game—humiliation of all who are stronger and better than the multitude. Logic and reasoning, which might show the absurdity of such dreams of bliss and revenge, are to be thrust aside. Marxism is thus the most radical of all reactions against the reign of scientific thought over life and action, established by Rationalism. It is against Logic, against Science and against the activity of thought itself—its outstanding principle is the prohibition of thought and inquiry, especially as applied to the institutions and workings of a socialist economy. It is characteristic that it should adopt the name "Scientific Socialism" and thus gain the prestige acquired by Science, through the indisputable success of its rule over life and action, for use in its own battle against any scientific contribution to the construction of the socialist economy. The Bolshevists persistently tell us that religion is opium for the people. Marxism is indeed opium for those who might take to thinking and must therefore be weaned from it.

In this new edition of my book, which has been considerably revised, I have ventured to defy the almost universally respected Marxian prohibition by examining the problems of the socialist construction of society on scientific lines, i.e., by the aid of sociological and economic theory. While gratefully recalling the men whose research has opened the way for all work, my own included, in this field, it is still a source of gratification to me to be in a position to claim to have broken the ban placed by Marxism on the scientific treatment of these problems. Since the first publication of this book, problems previously ignored have come into the foreground of scientific interest; the discussion of Socialism and Capitalism has been placed on a new footing. Those who were formerly content to make a few vague remarks about the blessings which Socialism would bring are now obliged to study the nature of the socialist society. The problems have been defined and can no longer be ignored.

As might be expected, socialists of every sort and description, from the most radical Soviet Bolshevists to the "Edelsozialisten" of western civilization, have attempted to refute my reasonings and conclusions. But they have not succeeded, they have not even managed to bring forward any argument that I had not already discussed and disproved. At the present time, scientific discussion of the basic problems of Socialism follows the line of the investigation of this book.

The arguments by which I demonstrated that, in a socialist community, economic calculation would not be possible have attracted especially wide notice. Two years before the appearance of the first edition of my book I published this section of my investigations in the Archiv für Sozialwissenschaft (Vol. XLVII, No. I), where it is worded almost exactly as in both editions of the present work. The problem, which had scarcely been touched before, at once roused lively discussion in German-speaking countries and abroad. It may truly be said that the discussion is now closed; there is today hardly any opposition to my contention.

Shortly after the first edition appeared, Heinrich Herkner, chief of the Socialists of the Chair ("Kathedersozialisten") in succession to Gustav Schmoller, published an essay which in all essentials supported my criticism of Socialism.[1] His remarks raised quite a storm amongst German socialists and their literary followings. Thus there arose, in the midst of the catastrophic struggle in the Ruhr and the hyper-inflation, a controversy which speedily became known as the crisis of the "Social Reform Policy." The result of the controversy was indeed meagre. The "sterility" of socialist thought, to which an ardent socialist had drawn attention, was especially apparent on this occasion.[2] Of the good results that can be obtained by an unprejudiced scientific study of the problems of Socialism there is proof in the admirable works of Pohle, Adolf Weber, Röpke, Halm, Sulzbach, Brutzkus, Robbins, Hutt, Withers, Benn, and others.

But scientific inquiry into the problems of Socialism is not enough. We must also break down the wall of prejudice which at present blocks the way to an unbiased scrutiny of these problems. Any advocate of socialistic measures is looked upon as the friend of the Good, the Noble, and the Moral, as a disinterested pioneer of necessary reforms, in short, as a man who unselfishly serves his own people and all humanity, and above all as a zealous and courageous seeker after truth. But let anyone measure Socialism by the standards of scientific reasoning, and he at once becomes a champion of the evil principle, a mercenary serving the egotistical interests of a class, a menace to the welfare of the community, an ignoramus outside the pale. For the most curious thing about this way of thinking is that it regards the question, whether Socialism or Capitalism will better serve the public welfare, as settled in advance—to the effect, naturally, that Socialism is considered as good and Capitalism as evil—whereas in fact of course only by a scientific inquiry could the matter be decided. The results of economic investigations are met, not with arguments, but with that "moral pathos," which we find in the invitation to the Eisenach Congress in 1872 and on which Socialists and Etatists always fall back, because they can find no answer to the criticism to which science subjects their doctrines.

The older Liberalism, based on the classical political economy, maintained that the material position of the whole of the wage-earning classes could only be permanently raised by an increase of capital, and this none but capitalist society based on private ownership of the means of production can guarantee to find. Modern subjective economics has strengthened and confirmed the basis of the view by its theory of wages. Here modern Liberalism agrees entirely with the older school. Socialism, however, believes that the socialization of the means of production is a system which would bring wealth to all. These conflicting views must be examined in the light of sober science: righteous indignation and jeremiads take us nowhere.

It is true that Socialism is today an article of faith for many, perhaps for most of its adherents. But scientific criticism has no nobler task than to shatter false beliefs.

To protect the socialist ideal from the crushing effects of such criticism, attempts have recently been made to improve upon the accepted definition of the concept "Socialism." My own definition of Socialism, as a policy which aims at constructing a society in which the means of production are socialized, is in agreement with all that scientists have written on the subject. I submit that one must be historically blind not to see that this and nothing else is what has stood for Socialism for the past hundred years, and that it is in this sense that the great socialist movement was and is socialistic. But why quarrel over the wording of it! If anyone likes to call a social ideal which retains private ownership in the means of production socialistic, why, let him! A man may call a cat a dog and the sun the moon if it pleases him. But such a reversal of the usual terminology, which everyone understands, does no good and only creates misunderstandings. The problem which here confronts us is the socialization of ownership in the means of production, i.e. the very problem over which a worldwide and bitter struggle has been waged now for a century, the problem (above all others) of our epoch.

One cannot evade this defining of Socialism by asserting that the concept Socialism includes other things besides the socialization of the means of production: by saying, for example, that we are actuated by certain special motives when we are socialists, or that there is a second aim—perhaps a purely religious concept bound up with it. Supporters of Socialism hold that the only brand worthy the name is that which desires socialization of the means of production for "noble" motives. Others, who pass for opponents of Socialism, will have it that nationalization of the means of production desired from "ignoble" motives only, has to be styled Socialism also. Religious socialists say that genuine Socialism is bound up with religion; the atheistical socialist insists on abolishing God along with private property. But the problem of how a socialistic society could function is quite separate from the question of whether its adherents propose to worship God or not and whether or not they are guided by motives which Mr. X from his private point of view would call noble or ignoble. Each group of the great socialist movement claims its own as the only true brand and regards the others as heretical; and naturally tries to stress the difference between its own particular ideal and those of other parties. I venture to claim that in the course of my researches I have brought forward all that need be said about these claims.

In this emphasizing of the peculiarities of particular socialist tendencies, the bearing which they may have on the aims of democracy and dictatorship obviously plays a significant part. Here, too, I have nothing to add to what I have said on the subject in various parts of this book (Chapter 3, Chapter 15, and Chapter 31). It suffices here to say that the planned economy which the advocates of dictatorship wish to set up is precisely as socialistic as the Socialism propagated by the self-styled Social Democrats.

Capitalist society is the realization of what we should call economic democracy, had not the term—according I believe, to the terminology of Lord Passfield and Mrs. Webb—come into use and been applied exclusively to a system in which the workers, as producers, and not the consumers themselves, would decide what was to be produced and how. This state of affairs would be as little democratic as, say, a political constitution under which the government officials and not the whole people decided how the state was to be governed—surely the opposite of what we are accustomed to call democracy. When we call a capitalist society a consumers' democracy we mean that the power to dispose of the means of production, which belongs to the entrepreneurs and capitalists, can only be acquired by means of the consumers' ballot, held daily in the market-place. Every child who prefers one toy to another puts its voting paper in the ballot-box, which eventually decides who shall be elected captain of industry. True, there is no equality of vote in this democracy; some have plural votes. But the greater voting power which the disposal of a greater income implies can only be acquired and maintained by the test of election. That the consumption of the rich weighs more heavily in the balance than the consumption of the poor—though there is a strong tendency to overestimate considerably the amount consumed by the well-to-do classes in proportion to the consumption of the masses—is in itself an 'election result', since in a capitalist society wealth can be acquired and maintained only by a response corresponding to the consumers' requirements. Thus the wealth of successful business men is always the result of a consumers' plebiscite, and, once acquired, this wealth can be retained only if it is employed in the way regarded by consumers as most beneficial to them. The average man is both better informed and less corruptible in the decisions he makes as a consumer than as a voter at political elections. There are said to be voters who, faced with a decision between Free Trade and Protection, the Gold Standard and Inflation, are unable to keep in view all that their decision implies. The buyer who has to choose between different sorts of beer or makes of chocolate has certainly an easier job of it.

The socialist movement takes great pains to circulate frequently new labels for its ideally constructed state. Each worn-out label is replaced by another which raises hopes of an ultimate solution of the insoluble basic problem of Socialism—until it becomes obvious that nothing has been changed but the name. The most recent slogan is "State Capitalism." It is not commonly realized that this covers nothing more than what used to be called Planned Economy and State Socialism, and that State Capitalism, Planned Economy, and State Socialism diverge only in non-essentials from the "classic" ideal of egalitarian Socialism. The criticisms in this book are aimed impartially at all the conceivable forms of the socialistic community.

Only Syndicalism, which differs fundamentally from Socialism, calls for special treatment (Chapter 16, Section 4).

I hope that these remarks will convince even the cursory and superficial reader that my investigation and criticisms do not apply solely to Marxian Socialism. As, however, all socialistic movements have been strongly stimulated by Marxism I devote more space to Marxian views than to those of other varieties of Socialism. I think I have passed in review everything bearing essentially on these problems and made an exhausting criticism of the characteristic features of non-Marxist programmes too.

My book is a scientific inquiry, not a political polemic. I have analysed the basic problems and passed over, as far as possible, all the economic and political struggles of the day and the political adjustments of governments and parties. And this will, I believe, prove the best way of preparing the foundation of an understanding of the politics of the last few decades and years: above all, of the politics of tomorrow. Only a complete critical study of the ideas of Socialism will enable us to understand what is happening around us.

The habit of talking and writing about economic affairs without having probed relentlessly to the bottom of their problems has taken the zest out of public discussions on questions vital to human society and diverted politics into paths that lead directly to the destruction of all civilization. The proscription of economic theory, which began with the German historical school, and today finds expression notably in American Institutionalism, has demolished the authority of qualified thought on these matters. Our contemporaries consider that anything which comes under the heading of Economics and Sociology is fair game to the unqualified critic. It is assumed that the trade union official and the entrepreneur are qualified by virtue of their office alone to decide questions of political economy. "Practical men" of this order, even those whose activities have, notoriously, often led to failure and bankruptcy, enjoy a spurious prestige as economists which should at all costs be destroyed. On no account must a disposition to avoid sharp words be permitted to lead to a compromise. It is time these amateurs were unmasked.

The solution of every one of the many economic questions of the day requires a process of thought, of which only those who comprehend the general interconnection of economic phenomena are capable. Only theoretical inquiries which get to the bottom of things have any real practical value. Dissertations on current questions which lose themselves in detail are useless, for they are too much absorbed in the particular and the accidental to have eyes for the general and the essential.

It is often said that all scientific inquiry concerning Socialism is useless, because none but the comparatively small number of people who are able to follow scientific trains of thought can understand it. For the masses, it is said, they will always remain incomprehensible. To the masses the catchwords of Socialism sound enticing and the people impetuously desire Socialism because in their infatuation they expect it to bring full salvation and satisfy their longing for revenge. And so they will continue to work for Socialism, helping thereby to bring about the inevitable decline of the civilization which the nations of the West have taken thousands of years to build up. And so we must inevitably drift on to chaos and misery, the darkness of barbarism and annihilation.

I do not share this gloomy view. It may happen thus, but it need not happen thus. It is true that the majority of mankind are not able to follow difficult trains of thought, and that no schooling will help those who can hardly grasp the most simple proposition to understand complicated ones. But just because they cannot think for themselves the masses follow the lead of the people we call educated. Once convince these, and the game is won. But I do not want to repeat here what I have already said in the first edition of this book, at the end of the last chapter.

I know only too well how hopeless it seems to convince impassioned supporters of the Socialist Idea by logical demonstration that their views are preposterous and absurd. I know too well that they do not want to hear, to see, or above all to think, and that they are open to no argument. But new generations grow up with clear eyes and open minds. And they will approach things from a disinterested, unprejudiced standpoint, they will weigh and examine, will think and act with forethought. It is for them that this book is written.

Several generations of economic policy which was nearly liberal have enormously increased the wealth of the world. Capitalism has raised the standard of life among the masses to a level which our ancestors could not have imagined. Interventionism and efforts to introduce Socialism have been working now for some decades to shatter the foundations of the world economic system. We stand on the brink of a precipice which threatens to engulf our civilization. Whether civilized humanity will perish forever or whether the catastrophe will be averted at the eleventh hour and the only possible way of salvation retraced—by which we mean the rebuilding of a society based on the unreserved recognition of private property in the means of production—is a question which concerns the generation destined to act in the coming decades, for it is the ideas behind their actions that will decide it.

Vienna, January 1932"

^rougy, are the ambulances privately run where you live? How's that working out for everyone? Anyone monopolized on the local ambulance business? Are they price-fixing? How's the corruption being contained where you are? Hmmm.

[edit] I don't think I've ever heard you give your idea of how things should run. I've certainly heard you poo-poo on everything Libertarian, but I never hear your options. I will assume you think that government is the only group responsible and incorruptible enough to run things, and therefore everything should be run by this utopian well-intentioned collective human government. Is that right? Is that the best option? A large government that is magically incapable of corruption and somehow that large all-encompassing government isn't a monopoly? An incorruptible large government that has lots of guns and who creates the laws and enforces them and dictates how much you should pay them - but that's not price-fixing?

You're right, I make no sense.

i say we just split the Sift into Cerebrarians and Lolcateers and fire RPGs at each other. that's the way most other utopian egalitarian dreams have ended.

re: Stalinizing

Dag I think you are creating a strawman here. Yes, some retards compare you to Hitler/Stalin as a way of accusing you of abuse of power. I think this is inappropriate because you don't abuse your power like that, in fact you are far too egalitarian. So ok, you're not Stalin, and drawing similarities between you and Stalin is only possible if you focus on your history of questionable facial hair.

BUT

Some other less retarded members specifically compare the system of siftquisitions to the system of "justice" that has operated in dark times during the cold war. That is to say, we see similarities between propaganda posters that say "DEFEND THE SOVIET UNION! REPORT TROUBLEMAKERS TO THE AUTHORITIES!" and the way "policing" of the sift works.

THAT DOESN'T MEAN YOU ARE STALIN AND YOU WANT TO KILL BABIES, it just means we see dangerous similarities between the sift's utopian egalitarianism and the Soviet dream.

It also DOES NOT MEAN that we think that abusing the sift is trivial and tolerable, in fact we would probably ban a lot more people than you, given the chance, and purge the sift of people we don't like, in order to make a less egalitarian system that actually has a compass and a definition of "good video", instead of relying on herd mentality. Oh look, I Stalinized myself. How ironic.

The thing I find ridiculous is that adhom is still tolerated and you are still surprised that it causes problems. I think you should get Stalinist on the ass of anyone who is impolite, and then watch the quality of the debates and membership soar. I for one would probably go charter and shut my filthy mouth. Think about it.

>> ^NetRunner:


I Admit I don't know much about what happened in Lebanon post-bombing, but going on that it's a defendable position, although the consequences as can be seen in allowing Hamas to participate and win the Gaza elections can be devastating.

Untied foreign aid to Pakistan was irresponsible but I still can't really see the connection to Bhutto's assassination. I can imagine what you're implying but it sounds tenuous at best to me.

I've always thought of North Korea's nuclear belligerence as a means towards extorting foreign aid, dumping them in the axis of evil and essentially ignoring them certainly didn't help, but their behaviour almost seems inevitable anyway.

I guess I can't really rail against TV personalities rather than supposed unbiased media reporting having biased or selective opinions from ideological standpoints. I guess I'm more annoyed at that there doesn't seem to be a thirst for investigative reporting. People watch the straight out news to learn the facts, but they go to these personalities to grab an actual opinion on the events transpiring. Perhaps it's because people feel they are too pressed for time or lack enough interest to become involved, while modern culture dictates they ought to have a presentable opinion on a variety of world events leaving them with the only seemingly plausible decision of stealing someone else's. Investigative reporting ought to be there so you can make up your opinion based upon the facts at hand, and yes I know I live in my own utopian world, but it damn well doesn't hurt to dream!

Plus television the main source of news nowadays was never made and isn't really plausibly capable of conveying large amounts of facts, so yeah I guess it's basically a pipe dream. Considering that, I can't really argue with Olbermann/Maddow being an inevitable counterweight to the Bill'O's of the world, a 'they started it first' approach isn't exactly ideal but then nobody really wins elections or consensus on culturally divisive issues based upon superior policy or logic. I equally have no doubt that there are plenty of people in positions of power who have no interest in an actual debate and are entirely content funnelling points of view through their television personalities, and would very much like to keep it that way so I agree with much of what you say.

The Republicans have been wrong on most things I agree, but the divide is not just political, it's ideological. I mean you're not going to see the benefits of the free market/invisible hand being argued on Olbermann/Maddow for example.

>> ^misterwight:

Sycophant!