I dunno. I would normally say non interventionism, as other nations shouldn't interfere with the internal development of any given nation, but when people are being suppressed by their own government and they cannot break their chains, I would say that it's a sorry excuse to not help them take over their own country.

It's hard.

I do think that of course, the UN should be the ones to mandate it - a sovereign nation shouldn't just do whatever it wants all willy nilly.

So they just willy-nilly cut off Fu Schnickens? Whatevs.

Murder is a difficult thing to get away with most of the time, and there's a level of sophisticated social engineering required before you can really rack up a count, otherwise you'll get caught around the 2 to 10 mark, like most people serving prison sentences that aren't drug or theft related.

But in all honesty, murder is not lucrative unless you're commander and chief to an army. The real money maker is hacking -- why doesn't EVERYONE hack? People on the internet are just slinging their credit card info and personal information around willy-nilly.

If you're a homeless person, here's what you do: (this is assuming you are so poor you have no money and little education beyond your street smart observation)

1. Steal someone's smartphone.
NOTE: If you are unsure what a "smartphone" is, just look for the people that are walking around, seemingly lost, looking at their phone the whole time. If you feel in control, ask them if they're lost. If they reply with a fragmented sentence about "GPS" or "Google maps", you have found your mark. If you're proficient with this style of conversation, find a way to lead them down an alleyway -- you know what to do after that. Example: They say they know that their destination is "somewhere around here, they just can't find the entrance", tell them that's because "the place is using a side entrance down this convenient alley."
2. Steal a second person's smartphone.
NOTE: Hopefully at least one of them isn't password locked. If both are, keep stealing until you have one that isn't.
3. Setup a free email account at Gmail and then go to Craigslist and sell the first device.
NOTE: Or Hotmail or Yahoo or Mailinator or whatever.
4. On the second device, find someone on Craigslist who will help you reset the first device so that no one can trace it back to you.
5. Use Google to learn how to hack, or better yet, just learn how to create phishing emails.
6. NOW HACK (or phish)!
7. You probably gave up on life a long time ago, so if you've figured out a foolproof way to steal smartphones, keep doing that, because people with smartphones are pretty dumb and hacking is actually kind of hard.

Special thanks to Google, Craigslist, smartphones, and the blind entitlement of your victims.

>> ^renatojj:

@Edgeman2112 if his track record isn't spotless, just focus on the spots and don't bother ever mentioning his many correct predictions. Nevermind his arguments either, if you blow any mistakes he made out of proportion, it invalidates whatever he stands for.
Also, being a multimillionaire investor, you obviously understand more about global markets and money than he does, right?


I don't comment on this willy-nilly. I've always, always watched him when he's on CNBC or Yahoo and catch his articles. Never does he have anything bullish to say hence permabear. I wish he would dig deeper in his claims but he always stays highlevel.

He rants about tuition being high because of subsidies by the government, but never digs deep into why.

Tell you what, try putting it in *bravo! <3
>> ^Deano:

>> ^UsesProzac:
Be careful putting it in skillful! The sifter who runs it will take it out all willy nilly with no explanation as to why no matter how many times you ask!
>> ^Deano:
I'm calling skillful on this even though I can't figure out what he's doing. But it's clearly the result of amazing skill.


I hate that guy!

>> ^UsesProzac:

Be careful putting it in skillful! The sifter who runs it will take it out all willy nilly with no explanation as to why no matter how many times you ask!
>> ^Deano:
I'm calling skillful on this even though I can't figure out what he's doing. But it's clearly the result of amazing skill.



I hate that guy!

@rbar Welcome back. You present a good definition of coercion, but how did you deduce that it applies to any situation where one has a "higher degree of power"? Did you miss the word "force" in there? Also, "threats" usually refer to "threats of force", the Oxford dictionary defines threat as a "a statement of an intention to inflict pain, injury, damage...", which sounds pretty violent to me. I don't think it was referring to threats like, "I'm not talking to you anymore!" or even, "I will fire you!". However harsh it may be to get fired, it doesn't involve violence.

Even if your idea of coercion has nothing to do with violence, I'm sure if you look hard enough though, you will find broader and more convenient definitions, but they won't escape the notion of denying rights.

Now, apparently you think an employee has a right to a job or is "entitled to something". What if no one needs what an employee has to offer, what then? Are the unskilled, the incompetent, and the dispensable, therefore, automatic victims of coercion?

If anyone with "power" can coerce, can you be coerced by a child's psychological manipulation? What about a person you're in love with, can they *coerce* you by leveraging your feelings towards them? What about a guy who is more qualified for a job than you are, is he coercing you out of that position?

If we just throw the word "coercion" around willy-nilly, we can pretty much justify anything a government can do to punish those perceived as coercive, and this punishment usually involves the use of force. So, instead of correcting social injustice, we'll likely end up causing more of it if more force is being used.

I need to refresh your memory on this talk of laziness, it was in objection to your statement that "all people always want to improve themselves", which you used to dismiss my concern about incentives and moral hazards in society.

I'm sure people give up laziness when their survival is threatened, but that's not the point of laziness. Rising above the petty needs of survival doesn't compel one to reach for the utmost excellence, that's where laziness comes in, people don't "always want to improve themselves", specially if they can live on a comfortable level by using force to solve their problems, imposing their costs on others. It's the lazy way out, get it?

Instead of increasing their power by becoming more competent, more useful, more productive, employees could argue that they are being coerced and use laws to forcefully remove the choices of employers as a way of giving them, the employees, more power. Having the choice of using force to solve their problems, would harm the incentive to improve themselves and that would establish a moral hazard: trying to do the hard thing, like becoming more productive (it's not easy!) would be punished by its very cost, while doing the easy thing, which is to rely on force to solve your problems, would be rewarded.

>> ^bamdrew:

eeek, check out the passenger side of the front windshield... possibly someone wearing a white shirt launched forward from the backseat


look closer, i think that's actually the driver...

but hell, why wear a seatbelt if you're just going to be running red lights willy-nilly...

So which breed promotes "citizens taking their duties seriously" the most? And what if one doesn't breed it at all?

Liberalism, Conservatism, or Libertarianism?

And yes, there is an answer to both of those questions--but I won't give it because I don't know it truthfully.

If you think it is Liberalism, then why? (The short version plz ) If you never questioned whether this was important, which belief breeds better citizens, then that is bad indeed, but most never do.

>> ^NetRunner:

@GeeSussFreeK there's a lot in here I like and agree with. Just going to randomly interject some thoughts I had as I read it:
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
[Ron Paul] is an advocate of declaring war, not the president just going in willy nilly. We can never really answer the question of if a particular war is good or not morally for every person at once, but we don't want to leave that moral choice in the hands of one man for no good reason other than self defense.
But Congress declared the wars that Ron Paul, as one man, wants to end. Paul's adherence to the constitution is selective on quite a wide range of topics, this one included.
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
That is one of the major dangers I see in Statism is when you outsource responsibility, you usually don't relegate much thought to it. The plumber fixes my pipes, I don't concern myself with how they work.
Except that's not "statism," that's division of labor. Specifically the kind that is the cornerstone of a market economy.
As an aside, you need to just remove the word "statism" from your vocabulary. No one is an advocate of "statism" -- statists only exist in the imaginations of right-wing ideologues.
Case in point, you're specifically talking about markets and the kind of "rational self-interest" inherent in the "free" market gospel of the right, but somehow think it's something entirely the opposite, even though your example is a purely market-based example.
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
Likewise, when you place all sorts of powers in agents hands, you tend to concern yourself with the goings ons...till they break. I think a Statism and Libertarianism have the same net effect if the people don't take an active concern in all forms of domestic affairs.
Right, like investment banking.
Liberals/social democrats/European socialists are united in saying what you're saying: the system will never work unless people take their responsibility as citizens seriously.
From where I sit, it's the right who are saying the opposite. They say "freedom" is defined by how completely you can abdicate your civic duties. You should never have to worry about anyone or anything that doesn't directly relate to your own direct personal interest.
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
I think that Statism markets might have a higher entropy, though, because it invokes an active outsourcing of all matters of life to agents. While that could work if you are always haggling your agent to make sure he is doing his best, and not up to shenanigans, why not just cut out the middleman and keep up with the basic concern yourself?
Agreed, once I correct the label.
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
I think the idea of the Democracy is starting to fail, not because of some flaw in it that wasn't already widely known, but the culture we find ourselves in. For a Democracy to exist in a healthy way, each citizen has to see his role as a citizen to provide enrichment for the body politic. In this way, the Wests focus on individual rights and Libertarian ethics sorts of causes entropy on this notion. We would much rather be watching a movie, or some other form of playboy recreation, then running down to our local City Council and partake of our duty (not only to others, but ourselves).
I don't mean to ramble, but I wanted to make that point, that it doesn't matter if you are a federalist, or a anti-federalist. If your voting body is poor in intellect, will, and a toxic cultural environment, then no matter of political philosophy will save you. I think Jefferson foresaw that this entropy, and the saying, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." comes from; that things have to get really bad enough for us to actually care about democracy for it to work again for us, and more importantly, us for it.
I totally agree with this, and it's very well put to boot.
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
Sometimes, dare I say most times, it is actually better to let those whom are convicted on the goodness of something to take the risk themselves and not try and hedge everyone in with them.

I don't really want to wade into the debate about Libya in particular (I think it was all shades of grey, and what we did was neither commendable nor reprehensible), but I will point out that it seems you're expressing the very abdication of civic duty you were condemning a few paragraphs before.
It's exactly the same attitude people have about their pipes -- they don't think they should have to think about them unless it's creating a problem for them directly. Either that's their inalienable right to liberty that we're morally obligated to respect, or that's the apathy that's causing our whole world to crumble around us which we're morally obligated to condemn.
I think I've made it clear which one I think it is.

@GeeSussFreeK there's a lot in here I like and agree with. Just going to randomly interject some thoughts I had as I read it:
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

[Ron Paul] is an advocate of declaring war, not the president just going in willy nilly. We can never really answer the question of if a particular war is good or not morally for every person at once, but we don't want to leave that moral choice in the hands of one man for no good reason other than self defense.

But Congress declared the wars that Ron Paul, as one man, wants to end. Paul's adherence to the constitution is selective on quite a wide range of topics, this one included.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
That is one of the major dangers I see in Statism is when you outsource responsibility, you usually don't relegate much thought to it. The plumber fixes my pipes, I don't concern myself with how they work.

Except that's not "statism," that's division of labor. Specifically the kind that is the cornerstone of a market economy.

As an aside, you need to just remove the word "statism" from your vocabulary. No one is an advocate of "statism" -- statists only exist in the imaginations of right-wing ideologues.

Case in point, you're specifically talking about markets and the kind of "rational self-interest" inherent in the "free" market gospel of the right, but somehow think it's something entirely the opposite, even though your example is a purely market-based example.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
Likewise, when you place all sorts of powers in agents hands, you tend to concern yourself with the goings ons...till they break. I think a Statism and Libertarianism have the same net effect if the people don't take an active concern in all forms of domestic affairs.

Right, like investment banking.

Liberals/social democrats/European socialists are united in saying what you're saying: the system will never work unless people take their responsibility as citizens seriously.

From where I sit, it's the right who are saying the opposite. They say "freedom" is defined by how completely you can abdicate your civic duties. You should never have to worry about anyone or anything that doesn't directly relate to your own direct personal interest.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
I think that Statism markets might have a higher entropy, though, because it invokes an active outsourcing of all matters of life to agents. While that could work if you are always haggling your agent to make sure he is doing his best, and not up to shenanigans, why not just cut out the middleman and keep up with the basic concern yourself?

Agreed, once I correct the label.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
I think the idea of the Democracy is starting to fail, not because of some flaw in it that wasn't already widely known, but the culture we find ourselves in. For a Democracy to exist in a healthy way, each citizen has to see his role as a citizen to provide enrichment for the body politic. In this way, the Wests focus on individual rights and Libertarian ethics sorts of causes entropy on this notion. We would much rather be watching a movie, or some other form of playboy recreation, then running down to our local City Council and partake of our duty (not only to others, but ourselves).
I don't mean to ramble, but I wanted to make that point, that it doesn't matter if you are a federalist, or a anti-federalist. If your voting body is poor in intellect, will, and a toxic cultural environment, then no matter of political philosophy will save you. I think Jefferson foresaw that this entropy, and the saying, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." comes from; that things have to get really bad enough for us to actually care about democracy for it to work again for us, and more importantly, us for it.

I totally agree with this, and it's very well put to boot.
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
Sometimes, dare I say most times, it is actually better to let those whom are convicted on the goodness of something to take the risk themselves and not try and hedge everyone in with them.


I don't really want to wade into the debate about Libya in particular (I think it was all shades of grey, and what we did was neither commendable nor reprehensible), but I will point out that it seems you're expressing the very abdication of civic duty you were condemning a few paragraphs before.

It's exactly the same attitude people have about their pipes -- they don't think they should have to think about them unless it's creating a problem for them directly. Either that's their inalienable right to liberty that we're morally obligated to respect, or that's the apathy that's causing our whole world to crumble around us which we're morally obligated to condemn.

I think I've made it clear which one I think it is.

>> ^Grimm:

RP wants to end all the needless wars. If any war is worth fighting then he would only require that Congress "declares war" as it is outlined in the Constitution.


Exactly, I think that would answer some of @bcglorf 's hold up on isolationism. Like isn't so black and white, especially on matter of war. Which is why he is an advocate of declaring war, not the president just going in willy nilly. We can never really answer the question of if a particular war is good or not morally for every person at once, but we don't want to leave that moral choice in the hands of one man for no good reason other than self defense. My like the recent stop to the SOPA legislation due to pressure from the outside, the same kind of pressure could of been used to help in Libya..but only if the supporters of that action could sway enough people to support that decision...just like a democracy should. And I don't think hiding behind things like NATO or the US should undermine our Presidents responsibility to us, he works for us first after all. Like in most questions of this nature, there isn't really a right or wrong when the action is taken or not taken in the most strict sense...only what was the most supported.

I think it is a little, in that light, to say that we couldn't declare war on the Libyan government. We are just so used to the President going to war for us, that we have basically abdicated our responsibility in this area. That is one of the major dangers I see in Statism is when you outsource responsibility, you usually don't relegate much thought to it. The plumber fixes my pipes, I don't concern myself with how they work. Likewise, when you place all sorts of powers in agents hands, you tend to concern yourself with the goings ons...till they break. I think a Statism and Libertarianism have the same net effect if the people don't take an active concern in all forms of domestic affairs. I think that Statism might have a higher entropy, though, because it invokes an active outsourcing of all matters of life to agents. While that could work if you are always haggling your agent to make sure he is doing his best, and not up to shenanigans, why not just cut out the middleman and keep up with the basic concern yourself?

I think the idea of the Democracy is starting to fail, not because of some flaw in it that wasn't already widely known, but the culture we find ourselves in. For a Democracy to exist in a healthy way, each citizen has to see his role as a citizen to provide enrichment for the body politic. In this way, the Wests focus on individual rights and Libertarian ethics sorts of causes entropy on this notion. We would much rather be watching a movie, or some other form of playboy recreation, then running down to our local City Council and partake of our duty (not only to others, but ourselves).

I don't mean to ramble, but I wanted to make that point, that it doesn't matter if you are a federalist, or a anti-federalist. If your voting body is poor in intellect, will, and a toxic cultural environment, then no matter of political philosophy will save you. I think Jefferson foresaw that this entropy, and the saying, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." comes from; that things have to get really bad enough for us to actually care about democracy for it to work again for us, and more importantly, us for it.

But more to @bcglorf 's point on genocide, and cowardice. I don't think it is fair to say cowardice when your only course of action is making more widows and orphans. And more importantly, it is an entirely different thing for some president to commit you to that course of action without any "due process", in this case, a declaration of war. I don't think it is cowardice, persay, to not want to kill someone that doesn't want to kill you, and might have a legitimate claim to kill the person they want to kill. But that is neither here nor there, a moral question that most likely will never see commonly, the point is, that each of us should have a voice in the action we collectively have to take, action or inaction. The benefit of defaulting to inaction is that it doesn't stop someone morally convicted like yourself to fund operations of support for whatever side. That is why I usually side with Libertarian answers for complicated issues, sometimes, you don't need one answer for everyone. Sometimes, dare I say most times, it is actually better to let those whom are convicted on the goodness of something to take the risk themselves and not try and hedge everyone in with them.

The government forced them to create CDO's? to bundle up non-AAA holdings and sell them as AAA? to extend themselves beyond their ability to cover their loses?

In a word - yes - the government forced the issue. Before the government interfered, lenders had actuarial tables and KNEW with 100% certainty who could and couldn't afford a loan the second they walked in the door. Mortgage rates were in the 8% to 10% range. Banks 'made' money on loans with the interest. People who earned less than 30K a year had a tough time getting into a house because (DUH!) they didn't really earn enough money. It was common sense. People that were POOR couldn't just go out and buy houses willy-nilly.

Then the government came along. They wanted people to get loans cheaper and more often and entirely for political reasons. But banks aren't charities and if they can't make the money on the interest (which you can't with sub-prime) then how do you make money? Hmmm... Oh yeah - let's get rid of this little thing called "Glass Steagall"! Now let's use the Fed to jack around interest rates until they are below 5%. Now you banks are commanded by government to make your profits by bundling the loans as derivatives. Now it is almost impossible to survive as a lending institution without doing what we tell you. Oh yeah, you banks? When it all blows up down the road it is YOUR fault... There you go banks!

That was government meddling with the market. They changed the rules so Barney Frank could tell voters that they had "UFFODUBBLE HOW-SING!". It was true left-wing, neolib stupidity on parade and it screwed up the entire planet. They were the ones that changed the laws. The private sector had no choice but to react to the rules that government barfed up.

The system that GOVERNMENT established turned the housing market within a very short time from a staid system of "moderate loans paid off by interest" into a crazed gold-rush of "cheap loans for everyone paid off by bundling". Banks had no choice to play that game because that was playing field that GOVERNMENT created. Any bank offering a SANE loan at an 8% interest rate and making its profits over 30 years was getting clobbered by lenders handing out loans at 2.5% ARMs that were making a bundle on the back end. Banks knew it was crazy, but those were the rules that GOVERNMENT set up and they didn't have any choice but to operate within that rubric. But government said, "Hey - if the loans blow up don't worry about it! We'll cover those bad loans with Freddie/Fannie and you won't be on the hook for it..." Government.

You see, that's what that happens when government interferes with the market and picks the winners and losers by changing rules, laws, and policy. The whole thing would have been impossible without a corrupt government starting the ball rolling for political purposes.

Everybody on the planet learned after the Great Depression that having an 'environment' where bundling and other such investments could exist was not good. That's why Glass-Stegall was created. It stopped a BAD investment practice and it worked for over 50 years without government being "involved" in a single, bloody thing. That's what !good! government does. It establishes a simple, basic set of rules and then STOPS INTERFERING. The reason for the housing failure was not because government WASN'T regulating the market. It was because the government WAS regulating the market in a terrible way.

Reinstate Glass-Steagall - a common sense law - and then ban the government from EVER interfering with the housing sector again. Things work just fine when you set up a simple, transparent system and then forbid the government from coming within a million miles of it.

Dammit EMPIRE! The constitution clearly doesn't give people the right to just grow vegetables, willy-nilly all over their front yards! Pretty soon, gay polygamists will be aborting puppies in churches!

@chilaxe


So Gitmo isn't such a bad thing then? I am ok with the idea that we only apply constitutional rights to US citizens, but only if we agree to it before hand not in the middle of the game, or willy nilly apply it to some people and not to others.

But not applying habius corpus in any cases opens to flood gates of potential for that realm to expand.

Though, @NetRunner brought up a point that I hadn't considered yet. That the sooner Osama is/was dealt with, the sooner we can leave that entire area without loosing face in the eyes of the world.

For us that don't like the means, it is the hope of the ends that is all that is left for us, and net provided me with a little hope of perhaps a little brighter future for our boys abroad. Come home soon troopers, it has been too long.