I do tend to agree that smart people often make better decisions than stupid people. Carrying that logic forward (which I assume you will not object to, seeing as it is taken directly from your own political philosophy) I am forced to side with dghandi and NetRunner in this discussion, as they are clearly smarter than both you or I; their arguments are much stronger in content, reasoning, logic, historical context and grammar. If I am to go along with your contention that democracy is tyrannical, and that intellectual elites represent a superior government model, then I must dismiss your inferior commentary as the uninformed babblings of an oppressive mob.

That said, I don't really want a dictator, not even a smart compassionate dictator with a sense of social justice like dghandi or Netrunner. I also want you to have a say, regardless of how confused, misguided or historically challenged your thinking might be.

Does this make me a tyrant?

It's not "you're racist", it's "you didn't think".

It’s actually quite the opposite. I’ve thought about this topic about 10 levels deeper than everyone else. They just don’t like it because I’m daring to bring up politically incorrect, uncomfortable truth.

You went on about how responsible home ownership says something about a person...implying it qualifies you as good.

Responsible home ownership does say good things about a person. It does not mean you are a good person, but it does generally show a person is good at managing their finances.

Taking away someone's right to vote because they did something society doesn't like is a different issue, and you're confusing the two, IMO.

No I’m not. I’m applying the idea fairly, and that disturbs some people. Is it not logical to say that the people who took out subprime loans they knew they could not afford did “something to society” far more harmful than the collective actions of U.S. mass murderers? So, why are people mentally comfortable with limiting the voting rights of murderers (who do comparatively little damage to overall society) but are uncomfortable limiting the voting rights of bad borrowers who cause far more societal damage?

IMO it's a bad idea to give government lots of powers to disqualify people from voting. It's WAY too easy for it to be abused, modified in stupid ways, etc. It's a serious slippery slope without all the normal exaggeration the phrase "slippery slope" usually comes with.

When the full public has unlimited voting rights, the eventual dynamic result is that the primary concern of the voter becomes the claiming & retention of personal benefits. The resulting loose, debt-heavy fiscal policy collapses the government. Is that not a “slippery slope” at least as alarming as the slippery slope of limiting voter rights? Which slippery slope do you choose? Regardless, the left has routinely pooh-poohed the entire ‘slippery slope’ argument. The opposition to Obama’s health care bill was based on ‘slippery slopes’ of death panels and socialism but it was mocked as ridiculous. Why is the ‘slippery slope’ so absurd when it is applied to leftist political philosophy, but so pertinent on voting rights?

Voting needs to be easier, not harder.

Easier? Sure. But more restricted too. A good start would be to require a valid U.S. birth certificate, and current photo ID at the site of voting.

This is abhorant, fascist thinking. Godwin be-damned if I can't call a spade a spade. I normally ignore your comments, but this latest set of talking points needs to be called out for the bull that it is.

I think that your hyperbolic overreaction suggests that your policy of self-recusal should be reinstated, because this entry into the crucible of debate is woefully inadequate. Clearly you are unable to control your emotions when grappling with issues, and therefore you should quit the field to spare both yourself and others from your abecedarian efforts. Or you could just go breathe into a paper bag for a bit and come back and try again. Your call.

What's different is that the left understands that we shouldn't be taking away people's civil rights because people use them in ways we disapprove of instead we think we need to do a better job of getting the facts and our point of view out to people.

When the left loses in the court of the national discourse, they do not just shrug and try to ‘get facts and a point of view out’. They demonize, attack, insult, and slander. When that fails they dictate by fiat against the will of the people. In short, they take away people’s civil rights when those people use their freedom in ways they disapprove. So your statement is patently false. The left is only interested in ‘civil rights’ insofar as it advances their pet agendas.

Liberal electoral reforms are always aimed at making it easier for people to vote, and growing the percentage of the populace who vote.

You need to correct your position, because it ignores a lot. The left always finds a way to make it easier for the people it WANTS to vote, but always seems to oppose easy voting for groups it opposes. Regardless, the whole civil rights argument is a cheap rhetorical dodge. Nations routinely monitor, restrict, and regulate voting rights. Requiring vital documents, proof of citizenship, and basic intellectual capacity is not some sort of crazy, dictatorial power grab. It happens all the time in every civilized country.

Mostly these days that's making sure there are paper trails for electronic voting machines, but it's also making sure the people working the polling places are treating everyone the same. Curiously, the right always finds a reason to oppose every one of the above.

I disagree. The left that is the routine, documented, proven opponent of a rigorous, fair voting process.

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

Blankfist butter makes the best salve - it's a frictionless transaction.

(I kid @blankfist- he's the Libertarian man)



In reply to this comment by kronosposeidon:
Gosh dag, that might be the most disturbing thing you've ever said to me. I mean I'm supposed to be the pervert around here, not you. Just because I've been slacking on my lecherous duties lately doesn't give you any right.
Let us never speak of this again.

In reply to this comment by dag:
I know it's self-indulgent masturbation but I'm trying to cut down on real masturbation - and this is a salve.

In reply to this comment by kronosposeidon:
Look at blankfist and you debating political philosophy. It warms my heart. Makes me proud to be a homo sapien. Still, I hope you aren't debating him on the clock. When productivity suffers, you make the Invisible Hand cry.

Gosh dag, that might be the most disturbing thing you've ever said to me. I mean I'm supposed to be the pervert around here, not you. Just because I've been slacking on my lecherous duties lately doesn't give you any right.
Let us never speak of this again.

In reply to this comment by dag:
I know it's self-indulgent masturbation but I'm trying to cut down on real masturbation - and this is a salve.

In reply to this comment by kronosposeidon:
Look at blankfist and you debating political philosophy. It warms my heart. Makes me proud to be a homo sapien. Still, I hope you aren't debating him on the clock. When productivity suffers, you make the Invisible Hand cry.

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

I know it's self-indulgent masturbation but I'm trying to cut down on real masturbation - and this is a salve.

In reply to this comment by kronosposeidon:
Look at blankfist and you debating political philosophy. It warms my heart. Makes me proud to be a homo sapien. Still, I hope you aren't debating him on the clock. When productivity suffers, you make the Invisible Hand cry.

Look at blankfist and you debating political philosophy. It warms my heart. Makes me proud to be a homo sapien. Still, I hope you aren't debating him on the clock. When productivity suffers, you make the Invisible Hand cry.

@Tymbrwulf, well put, and I have the same thought about how we go about functioning as a society without any real way of sorting truth from misinformation.

I think the response that I (and I believe Keith) would give to that is that this is how it's always been. It's a bit more obvious now that more people have vastly improved means to do their own "fact checking" against what other people have written, but an interested person can find source information to back any position by doing faulty research, or relying on dubious sources.

The value journalists can provide, have always tried to provide, is a way to boil down all the data, try to filter out the noise, put it into context, and then glean the salient relevancy to their readers/listeners/viewers, and present it to them.

The problem is that journalists can also twist all their stories to meet an agenda. They can ignore all the data points that don't support their view, they can conceal or misrepresent the context, and they can blow the importance of a trivial story completely out of proportion.

That problem doesn't go away if the journalists have an agenda of appearing objective by pretending that both sides of a political debate are always making valid arguments. In fact, it's can be worse, because they think that they're being objective, when all they're really doing is making sure their reporting carefully avoids upsetting either partisan camp.

The result is that we have supposed "hard" journalists going out of their way to make every story ultimately say that no sequence of events ever vindicates or repudiates the political philosophy held by any activists, and anything bad that happens in politics or government is always equally to blame on both parties.

For example, they can't say that the BP oil spill casts a tremendous amount of doubt on the idea that corporations will regulate themselves if we eliminate safety inspections. They also can't say that it's largely Republicans who've worked tirelessly for decades to reduce the amount of safety regulations, and worked to systematically hamstring enforcement of what remained.

What's always safe is to criticize the current government for not having fixed the problem instantly and without fuss, and to criticize the megacorporation for trying to minimize their legal liability, the costs of the cleanup, and for using professional PR to try to limit the damage to their reputation.

But if it's just context-free ranting against the people with power in our society, it can't really ever lead to a constructive conversation about how to change our society so things like this don't happen again.

Not everything is about you Netrunner. The statement talking about balancing government's role as a "threat of violence" versus versus the need to remove a government that stops respecting freedom was a fair one. I was waxing prolix on leftist tyranny creep - I.E. the process of using government to implement leftist social philosophy. I used your comment to show how our government has stopped 'respecting freedom' via tyranny creep. I never recall even mentioning your name. Where did I call you facist? You could only infer that secondarily if you felt that the leftist interpretation of 'social justice' actually should be forced on the people via government edict, and you were mad that I identified such a philosophy as tyranny.

Regardless, I don't see any refutation my position - only protestations that the argument was made. Leftist political philosophy is inherently tyrannical in nature. Modern U.S. governance is drifting more and more leftist every year whether under the GOP or Democrats, and the end result is less freedom and more tyranny. The recent congress is a great example. The American people rejected Obamacare in all its forms... Obama's plan, the House bill, the Senate revisions... All rejected. What did government do? They used tyranny. They rammed the bill through via an unconstitutional, arguably illegal budget reconciliation Tyranny. That's how the left works. When Democracy fails to allow them to get their way, they use force.

How amusing. All of a sudden when it comes to weed the 10th Ammendment starts mattering again to neolibs. Of course, it doesn't matter squat when it comes to illegal immigration enforcement, gay marriage laws (when the people vote 'no'), or repealing Obama's unconstitutional health care law. But hey - even broken clocks are 'right' twice a day...

For the record - if Cali wants to legalize weed then I support it. Because unlike neolibs, I am consistent in the application of my political philosophy. I'm a state's rights, small government, low-taxes, fiscal conservative, and I don't change my stripes. I think people who use weed recreationally are stupid idiots, but unlike neolibs I don't seek to use government to impose my standards on others.

@blankfist ahh, so after accusing me of putting words in your mouth, and then later confirming I had you right in the first place, you're now going to put words in my mouth. For someone who's so paranoid about straw men, you sure do use 'em a lot.

Mostly liberals were mad about the hypocrisy -- if the whole war on terror is about keeping America safe from domestic attacks, why cut police funding? Aren't they going to be the first line of defense against what's ultimately an international criminal organization?

But let's get back to this question of police brutality.

You seem to think police brutality is the direct result of some political philosophy you decry. (As evidenced by the "ha ha statist idiots" that you inevitably trot out)

Well, I'm asking you to explain to us statist idiots the simple and effective method you have for eliminating brutality from society.

Wow the irony of your statement is astounding! You engage in partial-truth statements about another group of people in order to try and make your party look better all the while insulting them and trying to reflect your own ignorance upon them. I find it a pathetic attempt at social politics in order to supposedly benefit your group. The problem is that many people see through your little charade. Unfortunately many do not and that's what you prey upon.

Since I was previously a democrat I have a good idea what they are about. There are moralistic qualities that are admirable however they are misguided in many ways as well. I like many of the philosophies of the libertarian group however I don't agree with all of them there either. Your assumption that libertarians would prefer seeing the black man thrown on the street and refused service is rediculous and absurd. You're merely trying to play a race card that really isn't there. I find that many will use the race card when it's their only avenue of recourse. This is VERY pathetic and it actually hurts your cause when you do this.

BTW, nobody likes the Ferengi.


>> ^NetRunner:

But you are confused. You don't understand what liberals are about.
By way of illustration, I'll say it again: I believe this non-DeLancie Q is absolutely correct. I'll go even further, any liberal who disagrees with it is not really a liberal.
Where we differ is that libertarians say "individual rights" means property rights and nothing else, while liberals realize that doesn't protect our basic rights as individuals at all.
My common example these days would be the old practice of businesses refusing to serve blacks. Libertarians think that as far as rights are concerned, the discriminating shop owner has a right to do it, and has a legitimate expectation that law enforcement will uphold his right to do so, right down to physically removing black people from his store if necessary.
To liberals, the issue of rights breaks the other way.
If you are interested in learning about the political philosophy of liberals, read this and its follow-up.
If you just want to be a mindless jerk who constantly refuses to look at what he's so busy insulting, just keep behaving as you always do.

>> ^blankfist:
Libertarianism is liberalism. You statists coopted the term and made it a lie. You are not a real liberal. You're a "someone created a wikipedia page calling Democrats liberals" liberal. Therefore, you are correct that this is a general liberal philosophy. But you're incorrect when you claim I'm the one that's confused.


But you are confused. You don't understand what liberals are about.

By way of illustration, I'll say it again: I believe this non-DeLancie Q is absolutely correct. I'll go even further, any liberal who disagrees with it is not really a liberal.

Where we differ is that libertarians say "individual rights" means property rights and nothing else, while liberals realize that doesn't protect our basic rights as individuals at all.

My common example these days would be the old practice of businesses refusing to serve blacks. Libertarians think that as far as rights are concerned, the discriminating shop owner has a right to do it, and has a legitimate expectation that law enforcement will uphold his right to do so, right down to physically removing black people from his store if necessary.

To liberals, the issue of rights breaks the other way.

If you are interested in learning about the political philosophy of liberals, read this and its follow-up.

If you just want to be a mindless jerk who constantly refuses to look at what he's so busy insulting, just keep behaving as you always do.

@blankfist the impression I get from you is that your true political philosophy is exclusionism.

What I mean by that is that you seem to define your politics by taking a look at the entire school of thought about moral, political, and economic philosophy, and then permanently crossing off parts of it as you find things you don't like.

Read about Stalin, cross off communism. Read something about Andrew Jackson, cross off the Democratic party. Read something about tyranny of the majority, cross off democracy. Watch a worldwide economic crash happen, cross off free markets. Corporations do bad things, cross off corporations. Ayn Rand says something icky, cross off objectivism. If mainstream libertarians say or do something you don't like, cross off libertarians.

It's like you think if you can avoid taking any kind of ownership for any established political philosophy, you can avoid having to defend any faults people find with it.

I say this, because even with people like me and DFT who are pretty damned clear on what you believe, you often object to whatever shorthand we use to refer to your beliefs, as if that's a response to whatever criticism we raised about your beliefs.

For example, DFT raised the perennial conversation about positive and negative liberty. You, as you so often do, pretend as if it's violent coercion vs. no violent coercion.

You fail to recognize that there's just as much violent coercion under any libertarian/anarchist mix, you're just pretending that things like enforcing "no blacks allowed" policies are some sort of enlightened self-defense, whereas funding food stamps is some sort of form of slavery.

It must be nice living in a world without shades of gray.

You keep wanting to paint me as someone who condones their religious/extremist views. The point I've been trying to make, and that you keep wanting to avoid, is that not all of them are true believers - and that those who join the Taliban for religious reasons are not the same as those who join for nationalist reasons. Observe the same trend in the American army - some do it for personal reasons, some do it for America, and some do it for Christ. Is it so hard to believe the bad guys forces might have the same factions?

Official protocol eh? Rendition, waterboarding etc. etc. is all official protocol. Does this condemn all members of the armed forces? Or just the ranking members who make policy? Hmmm...

Praising God condemns them all? Visit any American base abroad and count how many go to church or pray regularly. Hmmmm....

Definition of the Taliban eh? Thats a good idea. From Wikipedia:

The Taliban, alternative spelling Taleban,[5] (Pashto: طالبان ṭālibān, meaning "students") is a Wahhabi Islamist political movement that governed Afghanistan from 1996 until it was overthrown in late 2001. It has regrouped since 2004 and revived as a strong insurgency movement governing mainly local Pashtun areas during night and fighting a guerrilla war against the governments of Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF)

I see the Islamist political movement...and then I see insurgency. I have no doubts the Islamic extremists run the show. I also have no doubts the insurgency (Nationalist) aspect is a big draw in recruiting. Much like Al-Qaeda, the Taliban recruits based on resentment and anger towards imperial powers. You know this, I'm sure.

There's no such thing as a moderate Taliban member? Says who? You'll have to provide more than your word on that one. I'll rely on practicality and realism.

I had no intention of lumping you in with the Fox News assholes. I was meaning to display the various political factions within any given movement - devout doesn't always mean extremist. Not every American pastor or Priest is a Phelps supporter at heart - and not every Afghan insurgent is a wahhabist at heart. You see that, don't you?

I'm guessing many of them signed up to fight the Imperial invaders, not just to woman-beat and Jew-hate. If that were the case, you wouldn't see the informants and intelligence sources from within Taliban-held areas that Americans and other NATO forces rely on for intel, would you?

I despise extremist religious/political philosophy as much as you do. But, I also understand that I would sign up with the nearest big group of assholes in my part of the world if it meant we could better fight off foreign invaders.

>> ^LostTurntable:

I am also well aware that some American/Canadian/British/Australian soldiers are assholes who have killed innocent women and children. Does that make all of the soldiers in those armed forces assholes? Nope.
Yes, but the Allied forces who have done horrible things aren't acting on official protocol. Taliban terrorists who attack and murder women are doing so because their ideology dictates that's okay.
I highly doubt that all Taliban fighters are crazed religious or social extremists.
Go back and count how many times they praise God in that video. Even if not every soldier is a die-hard member of the Taliban (and in that video, they all were) they are part of an extremist Islamic political movement. That is the definition of the Taliban. Look it up.
They are also inhuman savages that beat women for no reason. That's also a fact. It is a strict part of the Taliban idealogy, they go hand-in-hand. Breaking that rule is paramount to breaking any other rule set by the Taliban. There's no such thing as a "moderate" Taliban member.
And for fuck's sake don't lump me in with the Faux News idiots and the anti-"Mosque" assholes. You want to build a mosque on Ground Zero? Go nuts. Build 80. Because the people in NYC who want to build a mosque AREN'T THE FUCKING TALIBAN.
I am sure that many people in Afghanistan do not want the US forces there. But there are just as many who don't want the Taliban there. Saying "not all Taliban soldiers are bad" is like saying "not all Nazi soldiers are bad" that may be true, but they are supporting a cause that is without a doubt entirely evil. So fuck them. They made their choice to sign up with woman-beating, Jew-hating, freedom-denying (and yes, these guys actually do hate freedom, as sad as it is. Under Taliban rule you aren't allowed to speak your mind, do what you want or even listen to music.) assholes who deserve to die.

>> ^Throbbin:
Don't be simple.
I am well aware of the acid attacks. I am also well aware that some American/Canadian/British/Australian soldiers are assholes who have killed innocent women and children. Does that make all of the soldiers in those armed forces assholes? Nope.
I highly doubt that all Taliban fighters are crazed religious or social extremists. I'd bet a good amount of money that many of them joined up because they don't want Team America there. I probably would have if I were in their shoes, and I'm not religious in any way.
"He's a warlord" - yeah, and how much do you want to bet General Petraeus has a summer home and a regular home?
They want everyone who doesn't agree with them out - sounds like the ultra conservatives in America and Canada. Have you seen any of the anti-immigration or anti-NY-mosque rallies lately?
I'm not pro-Taliban, but I am pro-truth. And the truth is that not all Talibanis are crazed religious extremists, and that once in awhile it's a good idea to remember that the people we are fighting (in their country) are people too, not just maniacs like the MSM would have you believe.
>> ^LostTurntable:
Surprise surprise - the "bad guys" aren't all evil monstrous brutal animals. Some of them are just normal folks who resent Team America invading their country and telling them what to do.
I guess he wasn't invited on the mission where Taliban forces attacked schoolgirls with acid.
I understand the war is a complicated issue, but these are holy warrior assholes who enslave women for their own perverted satisfaction. Notice how the commander used to have several houses? You think he got them via good stark market deals/ No, he's a warlord.
These are also religious zealots. They don't just want "Team America" out. They want everyone who doesn't agree with them out. Or dead. Preferably dead.
You can be against the war, that's great. But don't be pro-Taliban.

>> ^Deano:

Tony Blair's Third Way. Well just look where Britain is now.
>> ^NetRunner:
I wonder which political philosophy they'll use as the great evil this time.



I actually had something similar in mind when I wrote my original comment. They'd already done extreme-right and extreme-left. What were they going to do, take on extremist centrism?

I sorta envisioned a group of people who were split whether to cross a chasm or not, and the new baddie makes them build a bridge that goes halfway across, and then marches them off it...