Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y
Neural Knotwork

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.

user:
pass:
register,


                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             

It Takes a Village Idiot

The sequel to the wildly popular It Takes a Village
  (+6, -2)
(+6, -2)
  [vote for,
against]

As we all prepare for the likelihood for the victory of the infinitely corrupt over the unmoveably insane, this future bestseller will summarize how the disloyal opposition managed to nominate one of the few people on the planet that could lose to Hillary. A graphic novel, of course
theircompetitor, Aug 11 2016

The disloyal opposition... https://www.youtube...watch?v=WboggjN_G-4
" How much do you hate the ... " [normzone, Aug 11 2016]

Defining Arrogance http://www.national...tions-went-clintons
Deducting charitable donations to yourself [theircompetitor, Aug 12 2016]

Clinton Foundation Money http://www.factchec...oundation-money-go/
This might help. [RayfordSteele, Aug 13 2016]

To wit http://www.washingt...03?custom_click=rss
[theircompetitor, Aug 13 2016]

Democrats looking out for the people. (Bankers are people too) http://www.realclea...smear_campaign.html
Not sure which Democrat to believe here, but that bankruptcy law that the banks backed and Hillary signed was pure evil. [doctorremulac3, Aug 13 2016]

https://www.theguar...d-heartfelft-eulogy [pertinax, Aug 14 2016]

If anybody's interested, here's the Libertarian party platform. https://www.lp.org/platform
Judge it yea or nay from this, but please don't get your information from people who have no clue what they're talking about. [doctorremulac3, Aug 14 2016]

Race riots http://hosted.ap.or...2016-08-14-17-37-31
National Guard called up for this latest one, but they're happening on a pretty regular basis now. [doctorremulac3, Aug 14 2016]

by hilly https://en.wikipedi.../It_Takes_a_Village
what the fuss is about. [popbottle, Aug 16 2016]

Pretty much sums up my views on politics. https://www.youtube...watch?v=Pji_IX-UacM
Great song too. Sing it next time you're at the polls. [doctorremulac3, Aug 16 2016]

the definition of insanity https://en.wikipedi...mayors_of_Milwaukee
Milwaukee's Mayros [theircompetitor, Aug 16 2016]

Sneaky quilt pattening for communications - slave rescues http://home2.fvcc.e...g/final/blocks.html
[not_morrison_rm, Aug 16 2016]

Our Robot Future: Competitions, exhibitions, festivals, no jobs https://youtu.be/ysKMFScSduU
[Ian Tindale, Aug 17 2016]

The Power of Progression https://www.triumf...._of_progression.pdf
The rate of population growth has changed (shrunk), and actually for about 40 years has been fairly constant at approx 80 million per year. If that does not change, then we need to create resources to match. So see the next link. [Vernon, Aug 17 2016]

The initial problem http://www.france24...kest-rate-ever-2016
We need to produce resources to deal with the existing population, just as much as we need to increase resources to match population growth. [Vernon, Aug 17 2016]

[link]






       // A graphic novel, of course //   

       Of course ... after all, literacy isn't a noticeable characteristic of Trumpeters ....
8th of 7, Aug 11 2016
  

       I think a more accurate title would be, "It takes a Village of Idiots" --Trump could not win the nomination by himself, after all.
Vernon, Aug 11 2016
  

       // Village //   

       .... Nation ?
8th of 7, Aug 11 2016
  

       As a person who does not engage in party politics, I need to ask a question. Pardon my ignorance, but if the persons in question are the opposition, then how could they ever be loyal in the first place ?   

       I knew party politics was fraught with challenges, but...
normzone, Aug 11 2016
  

       The premise is that although the party in opposition by definition oppose the party in government, they remain loyal to the person of the Sovereign; they do not seek to depose, remove or frustrate the wishes of same, but merely to replace one disreputable rabble of greedy, venal, shiftless perfidious gits with an almost industinguishable one, but under a different leader.   

       This allows all the mobs of verminous parasites, loathsome self-serving oiks and nauseatingly hypocritical kiddie-fiddlers to take their turns in the dining car of the Gravy Train without any unseemly jostling.
8th of 7, Aug 11 2016
  

       ^ Extra credit for the colorful and accurate description of the gits, oiks and kiddle-fiddlers of the American politico.
whatrock, Aug 11 2016
  

       I suggest a very thick curtain is raised around the US when it's presidential election time. The curtain can be pulled back when the election is over.
not_morrison_rm, Aug 11 2016
  

       My latest revelation: He's like the Leroy Jenkins of the Republican Party.   

       This characteristic of the Republicans towards increasing levels of idiocy is why I became a Democrat 6 or 7 years ago.
RayfordSteele, Aug 11 2016
  

       // The curtain can be pulled back when the election is over. //   

       Best to just leave it.   

       [whatrock], it's actually a generic description of politics - nothing specific to the USA.   

       Wherever you go, one cockroach is pretty much like another.
8th of 7, Aug 11 2016
  

       I don't mean to intrude, but could you remind me again what makes Hillary so corrupt?
I recently spoke to someone just back from a visit to America, and he expressed a similar bemusement, so it's not just me.
Loris, Aug 12 2016
  

       I may run for president someday as a human turnip. I'm sure I can get the necessary backing.
xenzag, Aug 12 2016
  

       That depends on the meaning of the word "so"   

       Look at the latest allegations of pay to play at the state department. That is not even the tip of the iceberg,
theircompetitor, Aug 12 2016
  

       // makes Hillary so corrupt? //   

       1. She's a politician.   

       ... what else do you need to know ?
8th of 7, Aug 12 2016
  

       Corruption is insidious and often takes time. Also, it has more causes than one might first think. The common adage "Power corrupts" doesn't specify any particular sort of power, though most folks assume "political power" is what the dictum references. Hilary certainly has had significant political power for a number of years (was a US Senator before becoming Secretary of State).   

       However, "money is power" --and Trump has been a rich man for a long time. "Knowledge is power", and there are famous cases of knowledgeable dudes using their position of Authority to suppress new ideas.   

       What we need, then, is a way to measure corruption. I will suggest that "arrogance" is the most obvious symptom of corruption. There are probably other symptoms, but I don't know any that are more obvious. And since it *appears* that Trump is more arrogant than Hilary....
Vernon, Aug 12 2016
  

       Vernon, I don't think that's a fair argument. I'll grant you that people like Trump lobby and that causes corruption -- perhaps Trump has corrupted many a politician, Hillary included :)   

       I'm not sure what's more arrogant than simply powering through an indictable offense and then regularly using the "no one is too big to jail" phrase.
theircompetitor, Aug 12 2016
  

       [theircompetitor], you have described "hypocrisy", not "arrogance". I will accept that hypocrisy could be another symptom of corruption, though.... So what about Trump and his tax forms? Wasn't he one who originally said the candidates' tax forms needed to be made public?
Vernon, Aug 12 2016
  

       oh, Trump certainly doesn't suffer from lack of either hypocrisy or arrogance. But if you measure corruption by the desire to personally benefit from access to power, it is a) hard to beat the Clintons and b) hard to show that Trump has benefited from his run.
theircompetitor, Aug 12 2016
  

       Trump doesn't suffer from anything as to suffer implies some level of humanity. Instead he makes everyone else suffer from his hateful moronic comments, picking on weak and the most vulnerable like Mexican migrant workers; the disabled and most recently, the grieving parents of a war veteran.
xenzag, Aug 12 2016
  

       It's probably true that the boy Donald can't be bribed - not with money, anyway.   

       Having a billionaire businessman in a position of authority makes a lot of sense. He's nothing to prove, and he's already got eveything; if he hasn't, he can send an underling to go and buy it for him. Right now. For cash. And it's clear he's not Mr. Nice Guy, and he's not squeaky clean.
8th of 7, Aug 12 2016
  

       [theircompetitor], just because Trump hasn't told everyone how he secretly plans to personally benefit from having political power, that doesn't mean he doesn't have secret plans to personally benefit from having political power. Just like most seekers of political power.
Vernon, Aug 12 2016
  

       I think he's guilty of plenty of things without adding precrime, Vernon.
theircompetitor, Aug 12 2016
  

       " like the Leroy Jenkins of the Republican Party "   

       It must be a difficult year to be a member of the party.   

       [theircompetitor], It's interesting to see you discuss that the party candidate is human.   

       The captive breeding group of Republicans I use for benchmark are only able to be critical of candidates outside of their party. This is part of why I find party politics so creepy - one of the symptoms is partial blindness.   

       I confess I don't have any other captive breeding groups - their mating rituals are much less flamboyant, and they are more challenging to detect.
normzone, Aug 12 2016
  

       [normzone] I'm not a registered Republican though I have voted for a Republican candidate in almost every election I have ever voted in (my daughter ran for Congress as a Libertarian, and I voted for her).   

       I will certainly not vote for Trump, and I think the party did permanent damage to itself by letting what happened happen, but I will also certainly not vote for Hillary (nor would have for Sanders)   

       I don't view my politics like a sports fan (which is what I think you're referring to). However, what's so shocking (and sad) about this year is that for the true fan, so to speak, (e.g. markets, trade, abhorrence to populism,etc) Trump is so outside the norm that it should have been a no-brainer. It turned out to be a no-brainer the other way :)
theircompetitor, Aug 12 2016
  

       You can vote for me when I run as a human turnip.
xenzag, Aug 12 2016
  

       They're both corrupt. Corruption is standard operating procedure for anyone in power in a culture that worships material gain and wealth. We expect one segment of the population to govern us without regard to their own gain?   

       If you want to eliminate corruption, you need to eliminate the overlap in the governing and mercantile classes. Two years in the military/public service before you can vote. Ten years of service before you can hold office. High salaries and pensions for all elected members of government. Zero private or corporate campaign contributions. No parties.
the porpoise, Aug 12 2016
  

       No permanent civil service; all government employees on a one-year renewable contract, or a three year contract with a one year break, five year with a two-year break, or seven years with a three year break. No opportunity to work more than seven years* at a stretch; make your own pension arrangements. No promotion, or merit pay awards, without a one year break - cost of living only.   

       One of the main obstacles to the proper function of democracy is the vested interests of the bureaucracy that is allegedly its servant.   

       *Employment in the police service, firefighters, or other roles where continuity of experience is an asset would not be included. The strictures refer to office-based administrative roles.
8th of 7, Aug 12 2016
  

       High salaries for officials I would go for. Trump has shown you that name ID trumps money, money is not the problem, pigs at the trough is the problem, and since your going too have pigs, you have to eliminate the trough
theircompetitor, Aug 12 2016
  

       Public Service union upgraded to a guild, funded by its members, which takes care and pays for education time and expenses, extra holidays after x years, sick days, pension plans, health benefits, etc.   

       Other benefits are given only for things the gov't has immediate control over; some of them (for instance a free transit pass) are calculated into wage; some not - a city government might give a lower rate (or even free, if not already reserved) for arena rentals, for instance; or lower rates for city services, based on the employees not being in a position to stiff them on the bill. A large enough gov't facility might rent out cheaply space to the Guild for guild activities and services (dentist's office, bank, etc).   

       Gov't pays wage + minimum vacation, for ass-in-chair time only : wage is based on industry standards minus a small percentage to reflect the permanency of the employer.   

       At the end of the day, they'll be getting a bit more than their business contemporaries, mostly due to the bargaining power of a country-sized guild for pensions, health services, etc. while the citizenry can be (a little) confident that they're not being screwed over, at least not in the sense of "overpaid civil servants" anyways.
FlyingToaster, Aug 12 2016
  

       The western world’s attempts at transparency to alleviate opportunities for corruption and abuse of power and unfair harnessing of other peoples effort seem to have been generally successful when contrasted with more popular hotbeds of corruption, such as most of the global south. It is interesting that with all our transparency that any accusations of actual corruption can even be validly held up to be the case. Or have I missed something?
Ian Tindale, Aug 12 2016
  

       Corruption is partly a function of empathy.   

       The more you rely on empathy, rather than principle, to guide your choices, the more your choices will tend to favour the people around you, at the expense of other people (to whom you have a theoretical duty, but whom you don't actually know).   

       In Australia recently there have been two brave attempts to beat back the politics of empathy - one on the left (Kevin Rudd) and the other on the right (Tony Abbott). Both men outraged the people they worked with (civil servants, media, other politicians) by prioritising principles rather than personal relationships. Both men were therefore overthrown by their own parties, and replaced by bland, charming people, who completely failed to gain the public's trust or win an electoral mandate.   

       The entertaining part is that the people inside the political bubble genuinely can't understand where they're going wrong - they just complain about a mysterious disease called 'populism', for which they are, of course, in no way responsible.   

       It's as if they thought they'd been invited to the Decameron, and are only *very* slowly waking up to the fact that they're actually in the Masque of the Red Death.
pertinax, Aug 13 2016
  

       ... with the unfortunate twist that, sadly, none of them die.   

       // people .... civil servants, media, other politicians //   

       Do they rate as proper "people" ? We think not.   

       // people inside the political bubble //   

       There it is again. A dictionary may be helpful.   

       // Or have I missed something? //   

       Pretty much all of the last thousand years, apparently.
8th of 7, Aug 13 2016
  

       Not paying good leaders a wage competitive with private industry pretty much guarantees that you will get exactly as much ineptitude as you are willing to buy.   

       As far as Hillary goes, all I hear are allegations, and those simply originating from the right wing sites. Never any real smoking gun, with the possible exception of an email mishandling.   

       It's frankly time for those with the 20 year axe to grind to simply put up or shut up.
RayfordSteele, Aug 13 2016
  

       Plenty of mobsters never get caught either. I have no doubt of what she is, which, I must acknowledge, might not prevent her from being a better President than the current resident or, to be sure, Trump
theircompetitor, Aug 13 2016
  

       I'm pretty sure all the allegations against Al Capone were false. Never any real smoking gun, with the possible exception of a tax return mishandling.   

       Anti Italian-American propaganda from Christian right wing prohibitionists mostly. Again, it's that right wing lie machine.   

       But seriously, rather than repeating the well documented allegations that Clinton sold influence while Secretary of State, I'll post just one of the absurd counters to these allegations on one of many "debunking" sites on the web.   

       "Forbes: Giustra had already pledged $5 million to the Clinton Foundation “months prior to the trip.” “The Times makes much of Giustra’s post-trip pledge to the Clinton Foundation of $31 million but failed to mention that Giustra had already pledged in July 2005 an initial $5 million months prior to the trip. As Khan tells it, at the time of the trip ‘all the president knew was that Frank was in the mining business and wanted to become a world- class philanthropist.’”   

       So he wasn't paying off the Clintons for 31 million bucks because months before he gave them 5 million proving that the guy just randomly donates money because he wanted to become a: "world- class philanthropist". That's just one of many ridiculous arguments I found. Another states that the State Department didn't need to sign off on the uranium deal that Clinton okayed because it was a private company. That's complete bunk, but there are many other outright lies in these sites. Very bad cover stories tend to make me think the party being covered for is guilty, and there are many out there. The main overall argument though is she didn't get caught and all these favors after payment were merely coincidence. Well, ok.   

       But if there's any good facts refuting these corruption charges I'm certainly open to looking at them. I've heard one side, I'd love to hear the other.   

       My thought is, her supporters see here ability to get away with this kind of stuff as a strength, not a weakness. They WANT somebody who "plays by their own rules" to get this people's revolution going. "Mao and Stalin weren't restrained by bourgeois game rules, they did what they had to. That's what we need in a leader."   

       You can think Donald Trump is an idiot and an asshole without having to believe that Hillary Clinton isn't a corrupt, sociopathic liar. These aren't mutually exclusive concepts.
doctorremulac3, Aug 13 2016
  

       You're on to something there [pertinax]. The power of law is fairness regarding the facts. As soon as reason and logic depart from the enforcement of law, things become a popularity contest of emotional persuasion and dare I say... manipulation. It is the same across all government because the only function of government, in regards to its citizens, is to make and enforce the law... to organize and maintain order. As soon as that rational fairness deteriorates, the keystones of order are pulled, and the foundation of popular support fractures.
LimpNotes, Aug 13 2016
  

       Which brings up a core tenet of libertarianism, that this power should be limited so that it might be more easily regulated. The power of government to regulate needs to be regulated and the bigger it gets the harder it is to keep things honest.   

       I hesitate to bring up libertarianism when the current parties in charge have put up such awesome candidates for the presidency. I mean, they're both so good, how do you chose?
doctorremulac3, Aug 13 2016
  

       [xenzag]. you made me laugh very hard. And yes, I would vote for you, you little turnip you, over either of the other options. And here's a hug to go with my vote. {{{*}}}
blissmiss, Aug 13 2016
  

       We too would support electing a turnip. It couldn't possibly be worse than the other options.   

       // Donald Trump is an idiot and an asshole without having to believe that Hillary Clinton isn't a corrupt, sociopathic liar. //   

       Is it OK to believe that Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are both idiots, assholes and corrupt, sociopathic liars ?   

       That's probably the nearest you'll get to the truth ...</Colonel Jessep>
8th of 7, Aug 13 2016
  

       //Is it OK to believe that Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are both idiots, assholes and corrupt, sociopathic liars ?//   

       Works for me.
doctorremulac3, Aug 13 2016
  

       Even better, as a hypothesis it is internally consistent, and completely explains the observed facts.
8th of 7, Aug 13 2016
  

       Another core tenet of libertarianism is that it doesn't provide much of a check on the power of private industry to abuse the public interest.
RayfordSteele, Aug 13 2016
  

       Whereas the success of the other parties on the subject is self evident?
theircompetitor, Aug 13 2016
  

       Success is not a pass-fail grade. I'd give Libertarians an F, the Republicans a C-, and the Democrats a C.
RayfordSteele, Aug 13 2016
  

       //Another core tenet of libertarianism is that it doesn't provide much of a check on the power of private industry to abuse the public interest.//   

       Like the Democrat party does? Like that bankruptcy bill to make it easier for the banks to rape people who are deeply in debt to the already filthy rich? (See link) Not sure which Democrat to believe, but I know that bankruptcy bill was pure evil. People need to be protected from governments AND industry sometimes. Just for the record, I've never had to declare bankruptcy but the idea of limiting that protection because somebody poor owes money to somebody rich is pretty sickening in my opinion.   

       Libertarians DO believe in laws, just not stupid laws. Getting into these: "My tribe good, your tribe bad." discussions doesn't accomplish much. I'm fine with discussing individual issues though. I don't mindlessly endorse any party but I believe big government just attracts corrupt power mongers. The libertarian party is about as close to sane as anything out there in my opinion but they're not perfect.   

       That being said, nobody will ever change their mind about 1- religion or 2- politics so I've just wasted everybody's time. I would like to see the libertarian candidate in the debates though, just for some different perspective. Nothing wrong with that.
doctorremulac3, Aug 13 2016
  

       Balance of power is good. The tricky part is to make sure the powers that are supposed to be balancing each other are not in bed together. The recently proclaimed "death of sex" (see link) is therefore a very positive step for democracy.
pertinax, Aug 14 2016
  

       //none of them die//   

       Sadly, that's not quite true. Remember the murder of Jo Cox?   

       There was a tragedy of cognitive deficits there.   

       In populist terrorism generally, the blind murder the blind. Just as the terrorists don't really understand the phenomenon they're fighting, so also their targets don't really understand the problem they themselves are part of. Except that the targets of such terrorism usually *think* that they do understand, and that the problem can be patronized away. Hence, no dialogue. Whence, violence.
pertinax, Aug 14 2016
  

       // Sadly, that's not quite true. Remember the murder of Jo Cox? //   

       What's sad about that ? No one forced her to become a politician. No one made her jump through all those hoops to get elected. She was a nurse, she had a proper job that was respected and socially useful. She could have stuck with that. She could have got another job if she chose. Now, her kids have lost their mother, needlessly.   

       It doesn't matter how or why politicos are eradicated, just as long as they are.
8th of 7, Aug 14 2016
  

       //What's sad about that ?//   

       The Anarchists' Paradox: if you remove formal power structures (by, for example, killing everyone in them), then they are simply replaced by informal power structures, which are even less transparent and accountable.   

       I call this The Anarchists' Paradox because it occurred to me after I spent an evening at a meeting of actual anarchists. As anarchists, they had no officials or standing orders. Nevertheless, there were just one or two individuals who told the others what to do, and the others did as they were told. And those one or two people struck me as the most vicious ones, in a group that was mostly just amiably muddled.   

       Hence, killing all the politicians doesn't make politics go away.
pertinax, Aug 14 2016
  

       No, but by removing the entrenched mindset (and dissuading those of similar mindset) then change becomes easier to implement.   

       If a company is failing, one of the common remedial actions is to sack some, or all, of the existing management, and bring in people who know what they're doing and are prepared to make hard decisions.   

       That's not always the remedy. There may have been unexpected and unanticipated changes in the market - political, fashion, environmental. Whatever the cause, the management needs to adapt - and adapt quickly - to the new reality.   

       Those that do not are doomed.
8th of 7, Aug 14 2016
  

       An anarchist's group calling a meeting is a contradiction itself.
xenzag, Aug 14 2016
  

       Doc, see my above comments on grades. The L's as a party in power would be even more hijacked by monied interests than the current front leaders. That's one reason why it's a popular party by those with lots of money.   

       It's very easy to find and rail against stupid laws. It's much more difficult to project/detect the pitfalls of an absence of good law. And it's not always obvious which is which, as the perspective of ranters often contains a bit of, um, rantishness. Furthermore, I doubt that you'd find many parties that would want stupid laws--it seems the devil is in the details of what they find to be stupid...
RayfordSteele, Aug 14 2016
  

       //I don't mean to intrude//   

       I share [Loris]'s bemusement on this point.   

       I don't know whether Hillary is corrupt or not, but this circumstantial fact strikes me; that during the eight years of the Dubya presidency, the administration had every opportunity to build a criminal case against her. The fact that they didn't do so suggests to me that, at that time at least, there just wasn't much evidence.   

       Similarly, I don't know whether she's a gangster or not, but I hadn't heard any rumours of people murdering or intimidating potential witnesses against her. This, surely, distinguishes her from Al Capone.   

       So, for all I know, she may be guilty, but I still find the idea that she's *obviously* guilty a little strange.
pertinax, Aug 14 2016
  

       // there just wasn't much evidence. //   

       One hand washes the other.   

       Evidence can always be found, or made. After Bush cometh Obama ... the ball's back in the Democrat court.   

       If Dubya goes after Clinton, Obama frames Bush. What goes around, comes around. In the interests of maintaining an undeserved veneer of credibility, even the winners have to take care to shield the losers to some extent, otherwise the system that put them in power loses credibility (like it ever had any). Which is not in their interests.
8th of 7, Aug 14 2016
  

       //during the eight years of the Dubya presidency, the administration had every opportunity to build a criminal case against her.//   

       Well, most of the outstanding allegations against Hillary are about what she did after Bush was out of office. The murder stuff was never prosecutable since there was not enough evidence. It could all be nonsense, I have no idea. The case of the guy who died by dropping a barbell on his neck days before pre-trial questioning about a money laundering case linked to the Clintons is a bit fishy, but "a bit fishy" doesn't stand up in court.   

       There were also some alleged wrongdoings that were dealt with by the court like the Travelgate issue where the judge said it was suspicious but there was not enough evidence to guarantee a successful prosecution.   

       And besides, Bush's credo was to go along to get along. Cheney might have had other ideas but Bush just wanted us to all be friends. Didn't work out so great.
doctorremulac3, Aug 14 2016
  

       I'm not overly concerned with issues anymore. Most systems are self-organizing around a common morality, and abuses spontaneously create forces to battle them. However, I remain involved and interested, and look now to character traits of the candidates. Those that are most appreciated are candor and transparency. I feel Trump is far more transparent than Clinton and so the vote goes there... given those options. I liken him to a pig that wallows in his own filth, but I can see plainly that he is a pig, and I can see plainly that he doesn't try to hide it. I see Clinton as a pig with lipstick, and the hypocrisy of that destroys trust and confidence. Perhaps some of that relates to my blue-collar work ethic, but I expect people to have dirty hands, and the defining trait is simply transparency.
LimpNotes, Aug 14 2016
  

       Hence his eagerness to disclose his returns. I find Putin pretty transparent too, but hesitate to put his friends and defenders in charge.
RayfordSteele, Aug 14 2016
  

       Well, I expect Hillary to win and we'll have a kind of "reverse communism" where instead of the government owning the means of production, the corporations who pay to play will own the government. I've heard it called "corporatocracy". Hillary's specialty will be to put a bow on it for acceptance by the useful idiots and they'll all happily accept their reduced wages and increased living expenses with glassy eyed, foaming at the mouth adulation.   

       So the corporations will run things. Not my first choice but that's happened before, not the end of the world. Probably better than having all power centered around some ideological, all powerful central government trying to put their fingers into each industry on a case by case basis, like when Mao decided to put his intellectual touch on farming and starved tens of millions of people.   

       In the less likely event that Trump wins, I don't know. I have to see his cabinet to decide where his administration is going. If they're smart folks with a track record of doing good stuff it might work out. If they're a bunch of dumb-asses then probably not. Gotta wait and see on that one.
doctorremulac3, Aug 14 2016
  

       Trump has no chance of winning. Clinton will be a third term of Obama interrupted with occasional impeachment proceedings.
tatterdemalion, Aug 14 2016
  

       If Trump wins we'll have a race riot war the likes of which we haven't seen since the 60's.   

       A Libertarian would be even more in bed with private corporate interests, imho.
RayfordSteele, Aug 14 2016
  

       One of the primary Libertarian platforms is ending corporate welfare and government favoritism. It's a fundamental core tenet of Libertarianism, in fact, it's about the main one after defending individual liberty. From one of many websites: "We oppose all forms of government subsidies and bailouts to business."   

       That's like saying "If the Jews started their own state, they'd have lots of Nazis." It's so far gone from reality I don't know where to start.   

       Ray, read up a little bit about the Libertarian platform before you continue embarrassing yourself.   

       As far as race riots, like the one going on right now where they just called up the National Guard? (see link)
doctorremulac3, Aug 14 2016
  

       Also that race war keg has already been lit. [Redacted - doc's got it.]
LimpNotes, Aug 14 2016
  

       This latest incident was caused by black cops shooting a black man holding a gun but that doesn't matter I guess. I grew up in a black community in the 60s and have vivid memories of this sort of thing. It pains me to see people taking this path, it will not turn out well for these communities. There are hard working folks in these areas just trying to make a living that are going to be very negatively impacted with this faux revolution nonsense.
doctorremulac3, Aug 14 2016
  

       Libertarianism also supports cutting back on laws that keep industries in check with little things like the environment, consumer protection laws, resource management, etc. Forget your subsidy ban. That's just one aspect. The corporations will own it all.   

       Yes, I've read a bit. If you think I'm embarrassing myself then you haven't exactly thought about the angle I'm coming from.   

       And yeah, we have riots now, but I'm talking entire cities going berzerk, like Detroit 1967. It'll be just about that bad if you elect a race-baiter to the land's highest office.   

       Cut my mic. I'm going to bed.
RayfordSteele, Aug 14 2016
  

       //The corporations will own it all.//   

       So you're voting for Hillary because she won't accept bribes to grant favors to the corporations.   

       Can't make this stuff up folks.
doctorremulac3, Aug 15 2016
  

       You know, England has replaced the heads of two of its political parties, and will soon be replacing the third. As far as I can tell, even the worst of them would be better than your current options for the presidency. So, if you'd like me to put a word in on your behalf, just let me know.
MaxwellBuchanan, Aug 15 2016
  

       Rather one Hillary than an entire party full of them. I'd rather not give the Koch brothers their most glorious dream on a silver platter, thanks.   

       Sorry Max, we have an arcane rule about citizenship.
RayfordSteele, Aug 15 2016
  

       // England has replaced the heads of two of its political parties, and will soon be replacing the third. //   

       Sadly, however, the heads were left attached to the bodies, a curious and highly regrettable omission.
8th of 7, Aug 15 2016
  

       //Sadly, however, the heads were left attached to the bodies, a curious and highly regrettable omission.//   

       LOL, now THAT'S sharp political commentary.
doctorremulac3, Aug 15 2016
  

       Where are you coming from [RayfordSteele]? I don't understand any reasoning of your politics, unless I take a globalist point of view. But rather than assume, I'll ask. Do you think the interests of the American people should be secondary to a globalist agenda?
LimpNotes, Aug 15 2016
  

       // sharp political commentary //   

       Sufficiently so for the purpose, i.e. as sharp as a headsman's axe ...
8th of 7, Aug 15 2016
  

       Jesus could I possibly spell it out any simpler?   

       The Libertarian party seeks to limit the power of government intrusion into the private lives of citizens.   

       In doing so it also limits the power of the government into the regulations by which corporations must currently abide.   

       Weakening the federal government by the removal of these regulations, which is generally favored by a great many private corporations for the purposes of their own profits, therefore plays into their interests, at the expense of the general public for whom a great deal of these regulations are put into place.
RayfordSteele, Aug 15 2016
  

       But that's not all the Libertarians would allow. The Clean Air Act would be repealed. Laws against water pollution would be repealed. Laws against selling toxins in food would be repealed ---all those things are enforced by government inspectors, see? The only way businesses under a Libertarian system could be kept under control is if everyone carried a gun and used them on CEOs whose companies did bad things. THAT at least would be legal!   

       Except of course the evil CEOs would be surrounded by goons who would shoot back --or even shoot first.
Vernon, Aug 15 2016
  

       Libertarians believe there should be no laws about anything ever! You would be able to murder people and eat their heads!   

       Hey, this is fun!   

       Under a Libertarian government with strong property ownership rights, you have no right to pollute the air I breathe or the water I drink. This is MY air and MY water. You polluted it and you will be brought to court and made to stop damaging the environment, then be forced to clean it up. You cannot impinge on other people's rights to a clean environment.   

       I'm sure there are those out there that will say the courts will be abolished under a Libertarian government but we'll take the allegations one at a time.   

       Bottom line, there ARE laws under a Libertarian government system. Laws are what protects people. Laws are very important. Law good. This is not anarchy.
doctorremulac3, Aug 15 2016
  

       [doctorremulac3], it is the enforcement of laws that protects people, not the laws themselves. And just because you claim some air or water is yours, why should anyone believe you? How do you plan on proving that? What if someone claims to own all of it?
Vernon, Aug 15 2016
  

       I think the problem starts with having people call themselves "Libertarians", and "Libertarianism" becoming a thing. It's a bit like having a "Freedom of Speech" party - it makes you wonder what the others are like.
MaxwellBuchanan, Aug 15 2016
  

       //What if someone claims to own all of it?//   

       You're really having to create these bizarre scenarios where six hundred foot tall Godzilibertarians start running amok and crushing our cities under foot.   

       The Libertarian party is just another political party that has some variation in proposals for how to do things. There have been Libertarian mayors, governors and congressmen. It's the 3rd biggest political party in the US. I think it's healthy to have alternatives to the Republicrat machine.   

       The smartest people I've ever met have been Libertarian. I've seen IQ test wars about who's dumbest, Dems or Repubs, but I've never seen a three way including Libertarians. I'm thinking Libertarians would take that contest handily.
doctorremulac3, Aug 15 2016
  

       Obvious point #1. Dragging people to court to stop doing X is rather too late. The deed is done. The damage is done. This is the point of a regulation, to prevent all of that loss. Managing and making sense of those regulations in a way that provide protection for all people regardless of their financial means is the role of government.   

       Point #2. Some of them exist in specialized environments that are outside of the confines of the expertise of the general public, who would upon casual observation, consider them needless.   

       Point #3. Private property is not the only thing that exists in the world that needs protected.   

       Point #4. I believe that in a Libertarian environment, the tendency for money to buy influence in lawmaking becomes even greater than it does in our present system. I don't want to live in a company town.   

       Point #5. Sometimes some of the smartest people also tend to be some of the dumbest outside of their field. Case in point: one Ben Carson. And I've went to school with some pretty bright people, myself.   

       The libertarians might win it, if they weren't busy smoking something. But when it comes to getting things done I'll take 'effective' over 'tests well' any day.   

       My politics, limpnodes? I believe in dynamic stability. I believe that ever system and process gets gamed and deveops cobwebs, and that even the method by which we clean the cobwebs needs dusted off itself from time to time. Hence this time around I thought we needed Bernie. When they're not behaving like asses I'll side with the Eisenhower wing of the Republicans, but they don't really exist much anymore. Frankly Barry Goldwater's offspring can go jump off of a cliff, and I could have a reasonable party back.
RayfordSteele, Aug 15 2016
  

       Wow. I don't know much about the political spectrum in the US, but if one party calls themselves "Libertarians" and one criticism of them is that they're all on drugs, I begin to like UK politics more.
MaxwellBuchanan, Aug 15 2016
  

       Ah, "introduce a little anarchy, upset the established order and everything becomes chaos?"
LimpNotes, Aug 15 2016
  

       //This is the point of a regulation, to prevent all of that loss//   

       Which is why Libertarians have laws and regulations. Think we covered that.   

       // Some of them exist in specialized environments that are outside of the confines of the expertise of the general public, who would upon casual observation, consider them needless//   

       The general public? You mean those guys who invented and discovered, oh, everything? The guys who created the microchip, discovered DNA, invented vaccines, rocket engines, television, those guys? I'm pretty sure we do just fine figuring things out without the "Government Institute For Figuring Things Out." telling us what's up.   

       //Private property is not the only thing that exists in the world that needs protected.//   

       Laws. Covered that.   

       //I believe that in a Libertarian environment, the tendency for money to buy influence in lawmaking becomes even greater than it does in our present system. I don't want to live in a company town.//   

       A Libertarian government is based in part on NOT selling influence to industry, we've covered that. Furthermore, the Democrats are completely for sale to the highest bidder,at least they will be under the Hillary.   

       //Sometimes some of the smartest people also tend to be some of the dumbest outside of their field.//   

       Well, with that I won't totally disagree because I'm fascinated by the very common occurrence of smart people being wrong, but I believe in the general rule that smarter people TEND to make smart decisions on things.   

       But yes, groups of smart people can do very dumb stuff. Still, I'd like to see where Libertarians are on that IQ chart compared to the ruling parties.   

       As far as being on drugs, I may be addicted to caffeine but since I'll never attempt to get through a day without it I may never know.
doctorremulac3, Aug 15 2016
  

       No, I mean the general public that includes people that burn random buildings for fun, think that 'chem trails' are a conspiracy from the illuminati, think Elvis is alive and well, are hoping that crystals will protect them from bad energy, and that super beings resembling 6 foot fairies protect them from harm.   

       I don't think the Libertarians would be terribly successful at preventing the sale of government interest, given the schemes I've read at least. Too much magic fairy dust involved, where super people have perfect product information despite an almost assured increase in disinformation campaigns.
RayfordSteele, Aug 15 2016
  

       Well, we put the smart ones in charge and keep the stupid ones out of power by evaluating them and voting properly. If somebody says they believe in chemtrails or homeopathic medicine we don't vote for them.   

       You know why the Democrats have taken over the country? They decided they were going to be the ones in the pockets of the big corporations, something that the Republicans had always been accused of, but they did it smart. They realized you need money and corporations are the ones to go to for that, but their specialty is fronting for these big corporations wearing a Che Guevara concert t-shirt and posing as protector of the people. The sheep are dumb enough to say "She's one of us." and everybody's happy. Except the middle class who has to pay for this love fest between the elites and their corporate overlords.   

       Very weird to find myself agreeing with my arch enemies, the Bernie supporting communists, but on this account they're spot on.   

       Although the Democrats did do a good job of sticking it to the health care industry by forcing every man woman and child in America to buy their product. Take that big corporations! Power to the people!
doctorremulac3, Aug 16 2016
  

       Ray (and Vernon) -- I think where you're off is you are putting up a Libertarian straw-man -- the classical "so you don't believe in roads" argument. Practical government is ultimately practical government -- it was Bush after all that pushed the bailout through -- though plenty of Republicans outside government opposed it. Also, the scenario being talked about here is the presidential election, not every official in every nook and cranny.   

       As to regulation -- I'll grant you it is much easier to point at an event failure primarily driven by conservative sentiment -- say something like Flint -- than at the aggregate failure that the FDA is in terms of medical costs, pace of drug development, etc, or even more so on the regulatory state on economic growth -- but let me assure you both have a cost to society.   

       Government is balancing a multitude of impulses, from "there ought to be a law" to "don't thread on me". Hard to see how anyone can argue that the "don't thread on me" circle in the Venn diagram has been shrinking and shrinking and shrinking -- so the recent growth of the Libertarian party is a response to that, and I would argue a healthy one to balance the absurdities of the ever sprawling bureaucracies.
theircompetitor, Aug 16 2016
  

       Hear, hear.   

       I think the path forward should be based in critique of policies of the past. Let's look at bank regulation, or I should say "bank regulation".   

       In the 90s, I remember Democrats telling banks they were not to "redline" any more, that is keep housing loans out of certain neighborhoods that had typically lower average credit ratings because this was "racist".   

       So since the banks couldn't just say people of color get loans easier, they made it easier for everybody, the birth of the "NINJA" loan, no income, no job, no assets. Everybody got to be a housing speculator. When that little pyramid scheme collapsed, guess who the Democrats blamed? An election was coming up and it was perfect timing. "See what happens under Republicans?" Of course the Democrats voted for the bank bailouts because you can't let banks lose money on stupid investments right? Paying for the speculative misadventures of the elite is the job of the lowly, hated middle class.   

       There are good regulations and there are bad regulations. Saying "I'm pro fire because it warms homes and cooks food." met with criticism of fire like "Oh, so you support burning homes down?" doesn't really get us anywhere. Gotta take these things on a case by case basis.
doctorremulac3, Aug 16 2016
  

       //You know why the Democrats have taken over the country? They decided they were going to be the ones in the pockets of the big corporations, something that the Republicans had always been accused of, but they did it smart.//   

       One might be tempted to say that over time, the message of the Democratic party has become diluted by the numbers of Republicans abandoning ship over time for the other side. But I think it's pretty clear where the vast majority of the exec level stand in a normal election.   

       As far as healthcare is concerned, Democrats didn't get what they wanted, either. The resulting bill is simply what would pass by the Republicans.   

       Count me among the Bernie supporters. But not a communist. Nor even a socialist, nor even a democratic socialist, all of which you should learn are different things.   

       And I tend to fight strawmen with strawmen. Fewer actual injuries that way, although little advancement.   

       Republicans mastered the art of wearing WWJD bracelets while building ever larger barns to hoard their own grain, burning crosses in the lawns of every 'furiner,' and blaming everyone else for their own redstate misery over two decades ago.
RayfordSteele, Aug 16 2016
  

       Might want to check your facts. It was the Democrats who were burning crosses on lawns and supporting the KKK.   

       The Republican Party was founded primarily to oppose slavery. Remember Lincoln and the whole "Free the slaves." thing? Republicans were the ones that eventually abolished slavery. The Democratic Party fought them and tried to maintain and expand slavery. The 13th Amendment, abolishing slavery, passed in 1865 with 100% Republican support but only 23% Democrat support in congress.   

       But damn, gotta hand it to them. Their propaganda machine is good. Very very good. The Republicans come across as a bunch of bumbling "Church Ladies" (from SNL) asking "Is the camera on? Which way to I face?" when trying to use media to communicate their message, whatever the hell that is.   

       I've always said, Democrat or Republican, evil or stupid, take your pick.   

       //Count me among the Bernie supporters. But not a communist. Nor even a socialist, nor even a democratic socialist, all of which you should learn are different things.//   

       I've always marveled at how socialists are shy about admitting they're socialists. At least they realize that brand is pretty tarnished I guess. I think if you vote for a socialist, you're a socialist no? Bernie IS a socialist, at least HE thinks so and says as much. And it's funny how all the communists have disappeared. Where the heck did they go? A study in re-branding if ever there was one.   

       I just want to add that just because I disagree with somebody doesn't mean I think they're evil, and unlike some I don't throw around the "Worse than Hitler." thing at the slightest difference of opinion. There are good socialists, probably even good (if mislead) communists. We're all just trying to figure this stuff out as best we can and debate can be a good tool we use to figure things out.   

       And who knows, maybe I'll be the first person in history to change somebody's view on politics.
doctorremulac3, Aug 16 2016
  

       Ray, I'm presuming the 50 shades of socialism is for the doctor's's benefit? After all, I had 50 Volumes of Lenin in the house library :)
theircompetitor, Aug 16 2016
  

       What I don't understand is why you people just don't elect Obama for another term, given that he seems so popular.   

       <sits back; takes out pipe; fetches beer>
MaxwellBuchanan, Aug 16 2016
  

       [doctorremulac3], the Republicans of 150 years ago are not the Republicans of today. Today they want to abolish the Minimum Wage Laws. Remember that a great many Republicans are business owners. That means they want ordinary folks to work for them for a pittance --not a lot of difference between that and slavery, when ordinary folks have to work to be able to afford to survive.   

       Their own propaganda machine has been touting how they want to create jobs --but because they want to abolish the Minimum Wage Law, the logical consequence is that they want to take every job that pays $10 an hour, and convert it into 10 jobs that each pay $1 an hour --see? Lots more jobs! But no net benefit for anyone except Republican business-owners.
Vernon, Aug 16 2016
  

       I think you're getting this Libertarian confused with somebody who supports the Republicans, but I do believe the Democrats don't have the best interest of African Americans at heart. I believe welfare is slavery with a shiny new coat of paint. Get them addicted to welfare, break up the family and you've got a subjugated and dependent people who need to vote for you to survive.   

       Although I'm not a supporter of either the Republican or Democrat parties, I'm not a mindless supporter of the Libertarians either. For one thing I support a minimum wage because as somebody who's owned businesses, I've paid a living wage. If I couldn't, I had no business being in business.   

       Let me put it this way. If somebody has business that uses horses rather than people to perform the work, and they come to me and say "I can only afford to pay half of the food costs to feed these horses and you need to cover the rest." I say "You need to get out of the horse business." So when Walmart hires people that still need my tax money to survive, I have no problem with telling Walmart "You use people, you pay for their upkeep, not me. If I'm paying for their upkeep with social welfare programs, I want them working for me, the taxpayer, not you, the rich corporation. I'll have them building roads, tending parks, doing something more useful for me than making you rich."   

       But the real party of depressing wages for their corporate overlords is the Democrat party. The mantra is "Aliens will do the jobs that Americans aren't willing to do." This is code for "Aliens will do the jobs FOR LOWER WAGES than Americans are willing to take." Plus immigrants vote for the party of taxpayer handouts, so business benefit from lower wages and the Democrat party benefits from a greater voter base. Everybody wins.   

       Except the American workers already here.   

       Can I just point out that, despite this being a political discussion, everybody seems to be behaving very politely to each other? What the hell's going on here? Should I start calling people Hitler to get the ball rolling?
doctorremulac3, Aug 16 2016
  

       that's frighteningly misinformed, [Vernon], on multiple fronts.   

       First of all, the number of "registered" members of either party is relatively small. Let me assure you though that from the 61M people that voted for Romney in 2012, only a tiny percentage was "business owners" -- and simultaneously, Obama's 65M no doubt included a roughly similar number business owners (when compared to the overall vote), including people like Buffet and Gates, and including probably 1/3 to 1/2 of Wall St executives.   

       Whatever you think of the minimum wage, it should be quite obvious that it's costs find their way back to consumers (quite often also living on minimal salaries), thereby closing the loop and being ultimately useless.   

       The "their own propaganda machine" is a bit laughable, even allowing for Fox and Drudge we live in a "democratic socialist" press society, certainly by volume. Or else you haven't seen a trending shaming tweet recently.
theircompetitor, Aug 16 2016
  

       [MaxwellBuchanan], the US Constitution has an Amendment (its 22nd) that limits a President to a maximum of 2 terms in office. In some ways this is a good thing, because the President nominates those who will serve on the Supreme Court --and if accepted, they serve for life. A long-term President (like Roosevelt was, with 4 terms), can hugely skew the Court in terms of political bias --and Roosevelt did exactly that. The 22nd Amendment was done after Roosevelt's time, of course.   

       [theircompetitor], perhaps I should have been more specific. Most Republicans in Congress and the Senate have business backgrounds --and expect to go back into business when they are done changing the laws to favor themselves.
Vernon, Aug 16 2016
  

       I think part of the problem with American politics - or at least the cause of much heated argument - is that your political parties are so different from one another. That is bound to polarize opinion and lead to one side demonizing the other in almost any debate.   

       Here in England, we long ago found a way to avoid this kind of unpleasantness by making all three major parties identical. This not only makes everything much calmer, but also ensures the free migration of politicians across party borders. It's a win/win/win situation, really. It has also been a boon to the tie industry, since the colour of neckwear is the only party-distinguishing feature permitted in public appearances.
MaxwellBuchanan, Aug 16 2016
  

       //we long ago found a way to avoid this kind of unpleasantness by making all three major parties identical//   

       Pretty sure our guys are figuring that one out.   

       Candidate A: "My party promises more jobs and less taxes!"   

       Candidate B: "Well, unlike my opponent, I promise not only to cut taxes, but to stimulate job growth!"   

       As far as term limits go, I say give 'em two weeks. By the time they've changed the carpeting to their liking kick them the hell out. "NEXT!". In case it's not obvious, pretty much all politicians disgust me. See link for a beautiful song that sums up my feelings on the subject.
doctorremulac3, Aug 16 2016
  

       [Vernon], I'll take your point -- I believe that both parties are much more interested in Big Business than small business, non-withstanding their rhetoric.   

       As you may have seen elsewhere on these pages, I'm a big believer that we're on the path to the Singularity, but even without that eventuality automation is in any case making labor force participation irrelevant, and I believe all major parties will be getting on board Basic Income within a generation. And as committed a believer as I am to property rights, I'm hard pressed to see why a society would not invest in fully automated food production -- and once it does and presuming it is self-perpetuating, why would it actually charge for it.   

       This repeal of scarcity, which is being mini-tested in digital media is going to change everything. But it will not change the fact that some will own rocketships, and others will own shit. That may have to wait a bit longer.
theircompetitor, Aug 16 2016
  

       When robots are doing everything maybe the idea of ownership will be a thing of the past since everything gets handed to us and is therefor not considered really worth anything.   

       What does an animal hardened for survival my millions of years of evolution do when faced with basically being cattle waiting for our feeding? What point is having an intellect, a brain, aggression? Hell, legs and binocular vision for that matter. Do we just de-evolve into slug like food digestion tubes?   

       Sorry, getting off topic for a sec there.
doctorremulac3, Aug 16 2016
  

       I think you would have an explosion in hobbyist work (you already see it in reality tv (e.g. blacksmiths, survivalists, cooks, etc, artisans, restores, etc).   

       I think you would have an explosion in creative work yet to be imagined (think medieval festivals that are not festivals but 6 months expeditions recreating, say, a GOT campaign -- i'd say that's a start, we'll go way beyond that   

       I think you would have plenty of absurdly ambitious lifestyles (live underwater, live in antarctica, live on moon base)   

       Pretty hard to predict the effect of widespread CRISPR therapies for instance -- my guess would be a pretty drastic drop in birth rate unless we truly come up with a way to get off planet.   

       And then the really strange stuff that will come 25 years after that.
theircompetitor, Aug 16 2016
  

       What do prisoners do? What do school children do? Clique and compete for dominance. That mechanism is already in play. In fact I think much of the hystrionics that you find in modern day political drama is related to this. Life is too easy? Got nothing going on? Better dramatize your meaningless existence. Can't even do that? Better dramatize the meaningless faux pas of your leaders. People need adversity. Without a villain, we create one.
LimpNotes, Aug 16 2016
  

       Well, good. As long as we don't de-evolve into slug like food digestion tubes. Sounds pretty boring.   

       I think if we don't make the leap to the next frontier though we may have some problems adjusting. Inhabiting other planets there'll be no shortage of wit sharpening challenges, but staying here and figuring out what to do until the robots bring our soilent green smoothies, maybe not so much.
doctorremulac3, Aug 16 2016
  

       //When robots are doing everything maybe the idea of ownership will be a thing of the past   

       <Starts knocking out books in QR code.. "Swing low, sweet chariot" etc. At least the Underground Railroad will work a bit better, seeing as there are underground railroads these days. Best to avoid any loop line if trying to escape. NB the quilting code was pretty good idea (linky) different quilts for "get ready to load the wagon and escape", "this person is safe to talk to" etc>
not_morrison_rm, Aug 16 2016
  

       I grow tired of being told about the 1800's. This selective memory is one reason why I rarely take you very seriously. Defend the ideology at all costs.! Forget about the history... Vernon's already captured it; everything changed in the 1960's with the advent of the voting rights act and the KKK of today of today, to a man, if they vote, it won't be for a Democrat.   

       No, voting for Bernie or wanting to doesn't make me a socialist any more than painting my living room makes me an artist.   

       About Flint: living 35 miles from there, I can tell you that the fault there lay in both partys' hands. Flint isn't exactly a Republican stronghold.   

       As far as the minimum wage is concerned, we've had this conversation before. The effect of increased wages would of course be temporary until service prices would filter out. And you are again ignoring the market cost pressure of the global economy to suppress them.
RayfordSteele, Aug 16 2016
  

       //What does an animal hardened for survival my millions of years of evolution do when faced with basically being cattle waiting for our feeding?   

       It breaks shit.   

       The West is in decline. Fortunately for the West, there are 5 billion other people out there who are hungry and armed or easily so.
the porpoise, Aug 16 2016
  

       //As far as the minimum wage is concerned, we've had this conversation before. The effect of increased wages would of course be temporary until service prices would filter out. And you are again ignoring the market cost pressure of the global economy to suppress them.//   

       I might as well be arguing with the cat.   

       I don't want to subsidize businesses. I don't want to subsidize Walmart, I don't want to subsidize Mobile Oil, I don't want to subsidize the banks.   

       This conversation was starting to get interesting, even pleasant, and you're dragging it back into the childish insults and "Democrat party good non-Democrat bad!" nonsense. Ok, they're great, anybody who's not a Democrat sucks, we get it. Good for you. Now why don't you go find a nice Republican to argue with?
doctorremulac3, Aug 16 2016
  

       I was speaking to [tc] with that little paragraph. And read my treatise on Flint again if you think I'm in the D-good, R-bad camp.
RayfordSteele, Aug 16 2016
  

       You were speaking to me with the stupid insult. Knock if off.
doctorremulac3, Aug 16 2016
  

       I was speaking to you with the point about not taking you seriously.   

       I was speaking to tc about the minimum wage. Because I've had that conversation with him before.   

       Don't tell me otherwise, I know whom I'm addressing, you are just guessing. Amazing things, paragraphs are. They can separate whole ideas. Or did you happen to raise the point about Flint?
RayfordSteele, Aug 16 2016
  

       If you want to debate something civilly, that's fine. If you're going to rely on insults I'm really not interested.
doctorremulac3, Aug 16 2016
  

       The same can be said for using cherry-picking out of history to support your arguments as if I wasn't aware of the founding of the Republican Party or basic US history. You could have just graciously said something like 'oh, my bad,' when I told you it what wasn't directed at you.
RayfordSteele, Aug 16 2016
  

       Amazing things, names of the people you're addressing at the front of your paragraph. Lets people know who the hell you're talking to.   

       I addressed, very clearly, how the Democrat party changed its slavery tactics by creating a welfare state, but that went over your head evidently.
doctorremulac3, Aug 16 2016
  

       Acknowledged. Lots of thoughts thrown together in one post as they came to me over time.   

       No, I read it but didn't acknowledge it because I thought it was borderline conspiracy bunk.   

       Now can we get back to the topic at hand?
RayfordSteele, Aug 16 2016
  

       Just for the record. My penis is also huge.
LimpNotes, Aug 16 2016
  

       But I'll bet it didn't knock the pole vault bar down. Poor guy...
RayfordSteele, Aug 16 2016
  

       I’ve posted a relevant link to a very important Our Robot Future video I did about Competitions, exhibitions, festivals, no jobs. It has taken me approximately two days to scroll all the way down here, and then back up to post the link and then back down here to post this note. It is taking too long to read this post, with all the frantic swiping. I think half bakery posts that are too long to swipe down to should be indicated as such before anyone attempts to read it.
Ian Tindale, Aug 17 2016
  

       [Ian Tindale], your browser usually provides a scroll bar that you can use to estimate the length of a web page.   

       Regarding robots and basic income, their is a "ridiculous!" aspect to that. After the capital investment has been paid for, and with energy sources like wind and solar providing power for free (again after capital costs have been paid for), then there is no reason to charge anything for the products of the robots. So why would a basic income be needed?   

       Regarding the end of scarcity, there is a "ridiculous!" aspect to that, too. Does not anyone here remember the prime tenet upon which Malthus deduced a Catastrophe was *inevitable* (only the question of "when" remains to be determined), so long as population keeps growing? I'll link an essay about that, by Isaac Asimov.   

       That prime tenet is, "Population *always* grows to meet and even exceed the availability of resources." There are no exceptions in either the animal kingdom, or the plant kingdom, or even the bacterial kingdom. The degree of a Malthusian Catastrophe depends only on how much population has grown beyond the available resources, before members of the population start dying in droves. The bigger the "buffer" of resources, the bigger the die-off will be. If there is no resource buffer (all resources get consumed as fast as produced), then deaths will happen that exactly match the birth rate (in terms of biomass consumption (adults need more biomass than youngsters of just about every species). That's what normally keeps most species from suffering an M.C. (And that second link I added is basically about how we are using up our buffer. Population growth merely means we are using it up faster each year.)   

       If humans fail to become the sole exception to the primary tenet, then we can at the very least expect the global death rate rise until it matches the birth rate (again, in terms of biomass consumption).
Vernon, Aug 17 2016
  

       [Vernon], I think you're nitpicking a bit on basic income. My point was that basic income will happen as we shift into the new economy. I'll grant you that there are some scenarios where basic income itself is not necessary (i.e. if food and shelter are free) -- but my example outlined food, not shelter. Even with the freeing of Antarctica from ice, or wholesale ocean colonization, the planet is still limited size, so real estate will hold value at least until land seizes to be relevant (like wholesale matrixiation, or cost effective FTL)   

       Even grey goo requires source material, so sand will have value -- perhaps more value than energy -- unless we have a physics break through that seems hundreds of years out, not dozens.   

       Birthrates have fallen in developed nations as you are aware. I don't think your point applies -- I'm saying the technological shift has the potential to provide universal uplift. I could be wrong on that, but if I'm not, birthrates will fall worldwide
theircompetitor, Aug 17 2016
  

       // And it's funny how all the communists have disappeared. Where the heck did they go? //   

       Just a historical note; a lot of them were killed by other communists, and many of those who weren't did actually learn some sort of lesson and move on. A large part of high-brow literature between, say, 1930 and 1950 deals with this. Douglas Hyde and/or J.B.S. Haldane can give you a good idea of what it was like inside the head of an actual card-carrying Communist - and they were both people of quite a different kind from a typical present-day leftist.   

       With hindsight, it was sometimes the wrong lesson (e.g., "Maybe Trotsky would have been better") - but still, *a* lesson.
pertinax, Aug 17 2016
  

       //bring in people who know what they're doing and are prepared to make hard decisions//   

       The intersection of those two sets tends to be quite small, but that's by the way. The more urgent practical difficulties are
A. Assuming you can find such people, and insert them into power, how do you stop other people from shooting them by mistake for politicians, that practice being once entrenched and
B. How do you stop politicians from disguising themselves as such people?
pertinax, Aug 17 2016
  

       Dang, this thread has gotten incredibly interesting and I'm friggin' slammed this morning. Just got time to read them and run out the door. Cool stuff.
doctorremulac3, Aug 17 2016
  

       [theircompetitor], remember what Mark Twain wrote, "There are lies, damn lies, and statistics". The fall in birth rates is a statistic. For every year of the past 40 or so, in which 80 million extra babies were born (over the replacement level), that was a year in which that constant number equaled a lessened *rate* of births. The rate is a percentage, see? If each year has a larger population because of the previous year's extra births, then that year's constant number of births means the rate went down a bit. But it is still 80 million extra humans every year. When *that* number drops, instead of the "rate", let me know!
Vernon, Aug 17 2016
  

       Yes but it varies by region, with a correlation to standard of living
theircompetitor, Aug 17 2016
  

       ‘Conservatives say if you don't give the rich more money, they will lose their incentive to invest. As for the poor, they tell us they've lost all incentive because we've given them too much money.’ -George Carlin
RayfordSteele, Aug 17 2016
  

       //(only the question of "when" remains to be determined)//   

       To me, the most impressive thing about Malthus was the accuracy of his "when":   

       In 1798, he reckoned that the crisis was coming in about 50 years.
1848 was a year of violent revolutions across Europe, at the end of a decade known as "the hungry forties".
  

       Now, it wasn't a perfect Malthusian crisis, in that the population didn't crash right back (partly because of such safety valves as emigration to America) - but still, it's the most accurate fifty-year prediction I've ever come across.
pertinax, Aug 18 2016
  

       //Regarding the end of scarcity, there is a "ridiculous!" aspect to that//   

       Have you read Riesmann on this subject (in "The Lonely Crowd")? He seems to think that there are good precedents, and that populations do sometimes just decline without a catastrophe.   

       More generally, it's remarkable to me how little this debate has moved on since the forties and fifties, when the ground was covered by Riesmann and Galbraith. They got it wrong, but it least they did a lot of the preliminary thinking through, which seems to be missing from much of the contemporary debate on these things.
pertinax, Aug 18 2016
  

       It's a great quote, Ray. Problem of course is with the "give". To be sure concessions won through lobbying and corporate welfare are "give". The state didn't "give" any of the dotcom guys anything until they were where they are, correct? (arguably it is doing so now for Musk, but that's another story).   

       But inevitably yes, conservatives do find the notion of keeping a larger portion of what they make being called "giving" offensive. And actually, everyone does when it comes to their own taxes, as has been shown numerous times including in the recent scandal where half the world's Davos attendees were shown to be hiding money in Panama.   

       As to incentives or lack thereof, the reality is welfare reform in the 90s did work, and the opposite effort by the current administration is producing expected results.   

       And there's no better discredit of the Carlin thesis then the trillion dollar in student loans that produced no meaningful value for those students, but did move their politics left to the extent that's possible.
theircompetitor, Aug 18 2016
  

       I'd agree with all of that. The Carlin quote was for a bit of levity.
RayfordSteele, Aug 18 2016
  

       Got me thinking about machine evolution vs man evolution, how they're linked currently and how this link might change in the future.   

       Currently, man's evolution hasn't been effected by machines and machine evolution is of course entirely tied to man, they currently don't evolve on their own.   

       At some point though, might man's evolution be effected by machines? Do we make machines so effective at doing the things we used to do for ourselves that we lose those abilities?   

       On the other hand, people have speculated about machines taking over their own development and doing a sort of evolution on their own. I don't see why they might do this unless they were programmed by us for some reason. Beyond that I don't see any technical impediment to machines taking over the job of building and improving other machines.   

       So the stages might be:   

       1- machines dependent on man (where we are now)   

       2- man machine co-dependency   

       3- man dependent on machines   

       I'm sure people have probably speculated on this before. Just kind of interesting to think about, but in 5 million years it's hard to believe we'll be walking around looking the same as we do now just carrying the iPhone version 600,000. Of course maybe I'm still thinking with a 21st century mindset about the two being different. They might just meld such that the lines between man and machine are blurred enough to make old lines and divisions between the two obsolete.
doctorremulac3, Aug 18 2016
  

       " Currently, man's evolution hasn't been effected by machines "   

       Perhaps not evolution, but the most recent generation doesn't know how to do basic math or start a fire without a machine. And the ability to read text is being replaced by looking at image machines. That looks like the start of something...
normzone, Aug 18 2016
  

       Well many of us are already kept alive artificially by systems based on machines. We can't feed everybody without modern farming. Without machines most everybody in Manhattan would die off until the population reached a number that could be sustained off of hunting pigeons and squirrels in central park.   

       Wonder if the whole physical body thing might be going away. Consciousness on a microchip sort of thing. Might be a way to live forever without that space constraint problem. Then you really have the "Yea, but what do you do with eternity?" problem. Watch Star Wars a billion times? That would get boring. What does a consciousness designed to control a physical body with certain designated tasks, survive, eat, mate, do when it has those tasks removed?   

       Adhunno.   

       As for the man/machine hybrid, I'm already partly bionic having a plastic lens in my eye because the old one was fried by a laser at work. It's awesome. I hate my "good" eye. Complete rubbish by comparison. I also have to do what some would consider a ridiculous amount of exercise to keep my 55 year old body from looking disgusting, something it really wants to do. I'd love to just jump into a new biomechbody and spend that exercise time reading every book that was ever written or something. Plus with these standard issue bodies it seems like you just start figuring stuff out and it shuts down on you. I don't need to live forever but 200 years seems like about the minimum acceptable life span.
doctorremulac3, Aug 18 2016
  

       Money is power. Knowledge is also power. Therefore money is knowledge. Power corrupts. Therefore knowledge corrupts. Clearly if we want to elect the least corrupt people we should aim for the poor and ignorant. Why yes, I am available...
Voice, Aug 20 2016
  

       Time is money.
Ian Tindale, Aug 20 2016
  

       //Clearly if we want to elect the least corrupt people we should aim for the poor and ignorant//   

       Funny, but pretty much how the Cultural Revolution came about.
theircompetitor, Aug 20 2016
  

       Oddly enough, in Peloponnese, the words for "time" and "money" are the same. In French, though, the words for "time" and "weather" are the same. I think that tells you everything you need to know about the french.
MaxwellBuchanan, Aug 20 2016
  

       Interestingly, it was noted in the Gilbert and Ellice Islands during the Victorian era money and weather used analogous meanings.
Ian Tindale, Aug 20 2016
  

       Not by me it wasn't.
MaxwellBuchanan, Aug 20 2016
  

       Odd that I have so much time when I have the least amount of money.
RayfordSteele, Aug 20 2016
  
      
[annotate]
  


 

back: main index

business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle