16,951 Forum Posts by "RedSkunk"
At 3/23/07 11:18 AM, Proteas wrote:
If you didn't look at such terribly twisted porn, you wouldn't need to cover your trail so well man. Just give it up.
At 3/22/07 07:42 PM, Memorize wrote:At 3/22/07 07:23 PM, RedSkunk wrote:I think you need to re-read our line of conversation.I read it fine. Just another way to get under the skin's of people I do not particularly like.
By acting ignorant? Huh?
At 3/22/07 07:15 PM, Memorize wrote: I think he made it pretty clear that it didn't change a thing. Um... unless you missed it, I don't know.
I think you need to re-read our line of conversation. He said he was disagreeing with me, then went off on a tangent about how violence would occur regardless. I'm asking him how this changes things; why he is "disagreeing."
http://kustomzone.com/proton
*clicks*
Failed to open page
Waaah!!
*kicks the compooter*
At 3/22/07 01:35 PM, Korriken wrote: personally i Disagree. if anything at all were to happen to saddam's regime, whether america did it or it collapsed internally, this would have happened. the insurgents leaders would have still made a play for power and much bloodshed usually ensues when this happens. or if the insurgents got powerful enough they could have overthrown saddam himself, then the shit would have really hit the fan.
How does this change things? Think back to my crowded theater example (I think it's quite apt). Partial culpability still rests on whoever created the lawlessness.
Two points that you and others are missing or intentionally misrepresenting in my mind. First, mindless welfare to people who choose not to work isn't part of any typical "liberal" theory. Welfare is used as a safety net for when circumstances warrant it. Also, a liberal state isn't necessarily a paternalistic one.
At 3/22/07 01:19 AM, FUNKbrs wrote:At 3/21/07 10:09 PM, RedSkunk wrote:That was my impression too. Let's get it going again.Where do you want to host it? And more importantly, where are we going to get our hands on some fresh rhetoric? The old stuff is a little played. Maybe something a little more openly sinister this time.
I toyed around with some forum software last night, but actually I'm not sure if I should take on that role. Things never seem to go well. I'd be willing to host on my space, but then we run into the prob of no one else having access to the database (so dredd's neat flash things would be limited for example).
At 3/22/07 02:37 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: Didn't Skvnk quit? Good that he's back. I need to pick his brain about trying to finally fix the Endless Crew forums. I'm hitting some walls that look suspiciously like dead-ends.
I'm on aim semi-regularly, mang. Plus e-mail works. I got your messages but forgot the problem / it's hard to help via txt messages on a phone. =P
At 3/21/07 11:48 PM, Demosthenez wrote: I am confused. Under the liberal model, what exactly would be the solution here to someone living in a poor area with almost no job skills? Or are we on the pipe dream that the poor would not be as poor and she wouldnt have ended up in this way to begin with?
I mean, I get the example, poor person, poor job, poor area, poor job skills. But what exactly is the liberal counterpoint to this example? Because the United States government and the states now are clearly not libertarian in any definition of the word and this happens already as it is. Are you advocating even more government involvement in peoples lives and increased social engineering by the government?
No, I'm pretty much advocating the status quo. (fyi) I'm not really addressing specific problems or solutions (just a few examples here and there). I am disagreeing with those who say that smaller, minimal government would result in more liberty and and a more just society.
And I don't think it's especially a "pipe dream" to create and sustain a safety net (since one already exists). Wouldn't Mason's example of his wife likely be quite different had she lived 100 or 200 years ago? (This is largely rhetorical. We don't know. But what can be safely said is that economic mobility has drastically improved by the creation of positive rights in the past 70 years.)
And honestly, this argument will go nowhere. We are using opinions and words to try and debate a philosophical diffrence in our views. You cant refute words and opinions and beliefs and it would be foolish to even try. Because mark my words, the only one who will win in a debate like this is not the one who is correct (if there is indeed one) but the one who is the most clever and can write the most coherently. But then again, that is just my opinon and I have no faith in simple opinions. BLEH.
This is unrelated but also interesting. If our political or moral convictions can't be argued for (if no one can be found "right"), then how can we even hold such convictions? How can you believe in something that you don't believe is right? Or don't believe can be proven? It's paradoxical. The only way in which a debate like this would be futile is if everyone believed in different "end goals" or fundamental truths. But I think most people here are on the same page. Humans are unique from animals in that they are rational beings with free will, and therefor should be afforded freedom, or dignity, or basic rights or opportunity. Something along those lines. (Semantics aside.)
Concerning my targeting of "extreme" libertarianism, it's simply because libertarianism is an extreme ideology. Liberalism is not. Liberalism is quite moderate, it's not "socialism" or "communism." Liberalism shares with libertarianism a belief in free markets and free exchange of goods, and some sort of democratic governing system. Yes there are different "sorts" of libertarians. I can only respond by saying I can't address every single one, since (obviously) libertarians are not a monopolistic block all thinking the same.
At 3/21/07 10:41 PM, Gunter45 wrote: You're assuming that the people have to start going ape and trampling each other.
I'm not assuming that people have to do anything. But I think it's pretty usual for panic when a fire breaks out, and I think it's pretty common for an occupying power to be resisted. I think both are natural responses.
This actually goes to both your arguments: the fact that the insurgency is so violent that they kill so many of their own people isn't normal. Usually when a country is repelling foreign invaders, tens of thousands (according to those statistics) of the people you're fighting for don't die by your direct actions.
Obviously all of the violence isn't directed solely at the US occupying forces. I never said that. I just said that all of this violence is a result of the invasion. Do you disagree?
cellardoor, you seem more interested in getting into a pissing contest than having a civil conversation. I'm not really interested in that. If you want to try again, how about a cohesive rebuttal to the post instead of a sentence-by-sentence play. Thanks.
I can't believe you just wrote that. I was just about to go into the lounge and start bitching about remembering why I left and how I wish I didn't start posting again.
At 3/21/07 10:09 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: You know, you're using a broader term of "Libertarian" to only describe the extreme part of Libertarianism.
I'm a consquentialist Libertarian. I believe that the government should only step in when it is absolutely necessary to do so.
Point taken.
That makes absolutely no sense. So you're saying you need to tax people... to save them from government intervention?
Taxes are needed for a functioning government that is able to protect negative rights..... Yes.
Libertarians believe that nobody should have authority over them. All people should have dinviidual responsibility and the government should only seek to protect those who can't protect themselves, and support those who can't support themselves.
Libertarians still believe that welfare should be used ONLY for those who REALLY need it, not just some uneducated, underachieving drug addict.
My post was mostly concerned with true libertarians who believe in a minimized or nonexistent government. I generalized. I can't address libertarians who "believe in welfare some of the time."
Wait so you're saying instead of her working. She should be able to just choose not to and allow the government to FORCE other people to pay for her?
Thats bullshit.
Nope, that's not what I said. The rest of your post was confused and angry. I don't think you understood my post. And I'm not going to begin defending positions I haven't taken.
At 3/21/07 09:19 PM, FUNKbrs wrote: I'm under the impression Dredd isn't hosting it anymore >:(
That was my impression too. Let's get it going again.
At 3/21/07 09:16 PM, TheMason wrote: Liberalism maximizies coercion in that all things must go through the government from how we interact with each other to our standard of living. Society manages/governs what is good.
However, Libertarianism takes a minimalist approach to government power. We cannot live in a totally free society. Just look at Enron. However, you do not gain security by giving the government even more coercive power.
You look at government as some sort of adversary. The US is a democracy, and whatever its problems, the government is ultimately comprised and sustained by the people. Additionally, "liberalism" does not state that "all things must go through the government." At least no definition of liberalism that I know of. You're not arguing with what I'm saying here, you're arguing with a make-believe version of me.
And you present a logical fallacy here. Have you ever thought that many of these people in economically depressed areas are actually living their lives as they see fit?
There's no logical fallacy here. I'm endorsing an "equal training room" to go hand in hand with the "equal playing field." People can live as they see fit.
The libertarian mindset you're endorsing is flawed because it ignores reality in favor of lofty notions of "individualism" and Ayn Rand hysterics. To juxtapose the US with North Korea is absurd, but this is exactly what you've done. The creation and support of positive rights does not axiomatically create a totalitarian state.
At 3/21/07 08:55 PM, TheMason wrote: These rights do not necessitate a lack of action, I think you misunderstand Libertarian thought. The idea is that the government's ability to act is restricted and in some cases restrained. Thus what human rights theorists term "negative" rights are actually non-aggressive in nature in that they do not use political or legal force to assert a will (be it another individual or a society) to take property or limit freedom of thought or opportunity. It allows people to produce.
On the other hand, the liberal's "positive" rights tend to take freedom from the citizen to give to government. Positive rights restrain the individual and empowers government. The "positive" rights are actually aggressive in nature in that it would allow political or legal force to be used by the governments to asserts its will on the populace. In this system a government takes and redistributes from a central position that does not allow it to be flexible and responsive to local conditions.
This is exactly what I said. Negative rights do not require coercion, positive rights do (from the position of a libertarian, that is). I simply avoided your editorializing.
This inflexibility is why large systems based upon "positive" rights often fail to meet their lofty goals and gaurantees. Communual societies are only effective on the level of the village (not even cities), any larger than that and the society has a tendancy to deginerate into Totalitarianism.
I fail to understand what is inflexible, and I've already acknowledged that utopias do not exist. But this does not mean that we ought not to strive towards a better tomorrow. Finally, societies are inherently communal (it's part of any definition), and for examples of states which protect positive rights today, I need simply point to.. Well, nearly every single one. How about the US and the European nations? Personally I don't see the US "degenerating into totalitarianism," more than 200 years after its founding.. This is a pretty subjective claim in any case. Maybe you do see this decline.
Why not be intellectually honest and call it what it is: socialism and social engineering? And besides, what more do you want? Do we not already have a minimum standard of living? Do you realize that if a person owns a refrigerator they are more wealthy than 66% of the World's population? I have seen extreme poverty in this country, as I will talk about below. I have seen people who by our standards are exceptionally poor yet they still own not only a frige, but a microwave, car, TV, etc.
The existence of positive rights does not automatically create a "socialist" state, in the modern sense of the word. The US acknowledges and protects positive rights, and I don't consider it to be particularly "socialist." I consider that a bit of a knee-jerk reaction, and being a reactionary isn't "intellectually honest" as far as I'm concerned.
Besides postive rights can NEVER protect negative rights. As in nature (the basis for non-aggressive/negative rights), the aggressive will seek to prey upon the non-agressive. This is nature, the government's momentum in gaining power. They will not give it up once attained.
Positive rights can protect negative rights as I've already noted. The creation of anti-discrimination law in the US has allowed black Americans increased job and property rights, for example.
A few things here, an employer who cares little for his employees he will not remain in business for long. There is a cost involved in mismanagement of all parts of a business...to include mismanagement of employees. But if your yardstick is the wages earned by his employees...what is to be benefited from requiring a marginally successful business to pay more? Could this not cause the employer to make the decision to: 1) close permanently resulting in job (and therefore 100%) income loss for all employees. 2) Cut hours to maintain solvency resulting in ZERO gain for his employees. 3) Cut some jobs so that some may continue to earning.
This is the problem with "positive" rights, they set in motion a chain reaction that in the end often worsens the plight of those very people who are trying to be saved from whatever.
I can point to conditions in your typical factory in the 3rd world as a rebuttal for both of your points here. A factory owner there need not pay as much attention to livable wages or workplace safety as an equivalent in the US. The labor pool being drawn upon in a given area in China has little alternative, and less bargaining power with the owner. In terms of whether positive rights have a positive impact, it seems indisputable that they do. Compare the working conditions now (in the US, say) with what was common during the industrial revolution.
I present the following non-hypothetical story of a woman:
And this is a heart-warming story but essentially irrelevant. I never disputed the fact that social mobility is possible in the US. It's a class system, not caste. Your "moral" of the story, that everyone's place in society is "deserved," is a commonly held but incorrect notion. If this was universally true, then the average CEO deserved 400% more in 2000 than they did in 1992. And the average worker apparently deserved less in the same time span. Odd. If our incomes were tied to what we deserved, then you'd be absolutely right, of course. But they're not, really. Income is based on many more factors than just "how hard you've tried."
So wtf is up with teh dag? Is it still up anywhere on the interweb?
At 3/21/07 07:47 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:
I'm not sure why you're talking about education here. Obviously there are many factors that determine our lot in life. Formal education is just one. And, again, even if someone is not college-educated, this ought not to preclude them from basic rights. Perhaps you could respond to my earlier post again.
At 3/21/07 05:34 PM, Gunter45 wrote: Eh, I just got that from the source. Personally, I don't trust those percentages I posted at all. I just think it's funny to lambast the United States using a source that shows that a significant portion of deaths were caused by the insurgency.
You seemed to have missed my point. Let me make an analogy. If I yelled fire in a theater and caused disorder, who's fault is it that people got trampled?
bingo.
At 3/21/07 05:31 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote: And for the question, why does she have minimal job skills? If it through her own inaction in her studies, then the effects will be noted and the government has no responsibility for that person. Likewise, to help defend this person "social rights" but be to dictate to the corporation and infringe on the ideals of a free market that our nation was founded on.
The government doesn't have responsibility for any particular individual. But I believe the government has some responsibility in fostering an equal opportunity for a decent life for all of its citizens. And even if this woman made mistakes in the past, I believe she still has the right to determine our she lives her life. Damning someone for the rest of their life because of (possible) mistakes made when they were younger is hardly an even, just punishment. In my opinion.
The Libertarian Model is for the one to live life as they see fit, with little restrictions and controlls by the government to deem what they do, and tax them on the part of it.
There is no such thing as economic freedoms. You feel that your job isn't paying you well enough. Then quit, find another job, unionize or educate yourself. Social movement and upward mobility aren't restricted to people.
Yes, I already outlined the libertarian preoccupation with negative rights. As far as whether we have economic freedom, you contradict yourself in the very next sentence. We have the ability to change occupations, to determine how we earn and spend our money. We have the ability to own property and to buy and sell in fair exchanges. But a problem arises when, as in my example, there is no choice in the matter of where or what or for whom to work.
At 3/21/07 05:18 PM, Politics wrote: Yeah, that outlines the basis to a significant amount of liberal thinking, but I hope you don't expect many responses, since there isn't much to disagree with, imho. That, and 90% of people would probably rather post "tldr" than actually spend the time of day.
A cursory look found a lot of people running around here claiming to be Republicans, but endorsing libertarian thought. I was hoping to piss on them a bit.
At 3/21/07 05:12 PM, Heritage wrote: So what do you propose?
The liberal method of moderate government intervention, the protection of "positive" rights.
At 3/21/07 04:57 PM, Gunter45 wrote: "Most deaths were from gunshot wounds (56%), with a further 13% from car bomb injuries and 14% the result of other explosions."
Wow, 13% from car bombs, huh? I wonder who's been using those...
Hey Gunter, I was just wondering if you had statistics on how many people were killed by car bombs in Iraq in 2002. Either a raw number or as a percentage of total deaths. Thanks!
*"A t-shirt will strain more finely, so it might not work as well."
At 3/21/07 03:20 AM, Sensationalism wrote: I want to make cannabutter. I think I have everything I need except for a cheesecloth. Is there anything else I can use that will work just as well?
Cloth (ie. reusable) coffee filters seem to strain about the same, but just go get a cheesecloth. I've used a t-shirt to strain before, they also work. It'll strain better though I believe, so it might work as well.
At 3/21/07 04:49 PM, BocesPlayer wrote: That's all that really needs to be said. There is really no point to this discussion.
Then don't post, buck-o.
At 3/21/07 04:43 PM, FUNKbrs wrote: Psh, the only use I have for a straight-edge is during blood play sex.
You're just a cuddly teddy bear like proteas.
Libertarianism is centered around so-called 'negative' rights. These are rights that do not necessitate action from others, but simply lack of action. Examples are things such as the right of free speech, right of freedom from violence or coercion. and, chiefly, property rights. (Taxation, therefor, is illegitimate because it is coercive (there is no real choice presented – your property is taken by the government).) Negative rights are the yardstick when measuring the justness of a society.
However, the libertarian is incorrect to only defend 'negative' rights. Today's "liberal" defends 'positive' rights, such as a minimum standard of living (the minimum wage), anti-discrimination laws, and taxation (particularly in the pursuit of redistributing wealth). The libertarian is short-sighted because these positive rights are required to protect the former negative rights. Consider the following example.
A woman lives in an extremely depressed area. She has minimum job skills, and faces the "choice" of either starving or working for an employer who pays poorly and cares little for his employees. As with taxation, there is no choice presented here. The woman must, to survive, accept this job. This is economic coercion, and the libertarian ignores it.
There will be coercion in both models. The difference is that in the liberal model, human dignity is respected, and coercion is minimized. Prudent, progressive taxation allows even those most-taxed to live their lives as they see fit. In the libertarian model, economic, political, and social coercion is unrestricted by any controls, and those affected are disallowed to live their lives as they see fit. The libertarian ideal then is one that results in decreased liberty and freedom, and following this, an unjust society.
At 3/21/07 02:57 PM, Proteas wrote: Sorry, your application was used to roll joints for Funk, myself, Maus, and Shrike. That was one wild night....
But I thought all of you were whiny straight-edge bizzitches...?
You mean I'm not a moderator yet?
