Political discussion thread

Epignosis wrote: The Doctor wrote: Epignosis wrote: The Doctor wrote: ^The threat of firing people from their jobs, kicking people out of their homes, or in any other way the threat of losing one's means of survival or livelihood are also forms of coercion.  Contracts (something the right loves to tout as freedom) are actually very coercive when there is unequal bargaining power.  Not all coercion exists at the point of a gun.   Contracts are not coercive.  Two or more parties must agree to them.  If you don't like the terms of the agreement, don't sign up!In fact, know what I did 12/31/12?  We fired Bank of America.  Now who has more bargaining power there?  The bank, or us?We also fired our landlord three years ago.  The AC kept going out and they wanted to raise the rent.  We said No.  I was unemployed at the time, by the way.  So was my wife.  We had two kids. Take it or leave it contracts are coercive.  And when you need a job or a place to live (or when every job or more often every place to live has the exact same terms) and you have no choice, there is coercion. Take it or leave it contracts are not coercive.  They allow a choice.  TAKE IT.  OR LEAVE IT.  If I must use Wikipedia:Coercion (<span ="nowrap"><small>pron.:</small> <span title="Representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet IPA" ="IPA">/</span><span ="IPA"><span title="'k' in 'kind'" style="border-bottom:1px dotted">k</span></span><span ="IPA"><span title="/oʊ/ long 'o' in 'bode'" style="border-bottom:1px dotted">oʊ</span></span><span ="IPA"><span title="/ˈ/ primary stress follows" style="border-bottom:1px dotted">ˈ</span></span><span ="IPA"><span title="/ɜr/ 'ir' in 'bird'" style="border-bottom:1px dotted">ɜr</span></span><span ="IPA"><span title="/ʃ/ 'sh' in 'shy'" style="border-bottom:1px dotted">ʃ</span></span><span ="IPA"><span title="/ən/ 'on' in ''" style="border-bottom:1px dotted">ən</span></span><span title="Representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet IPA" ="IPA">/</span></span>) is the practice of forcing another party to act in an involuntary manner (whether through action or inaction) by use of threats or intimidation or some other form of pressure or force. In law, coercion is codified as the duress crime.

'Threats, intimidation, or some other form of pressure or force' is pretty broad actually, as it should be because the word does not have the narrow meaning your placing on it.

Edited by HackettFan - January 02 2013 at 21:28

HackettFan wrote: Epignosis wrote: The Doctor wrote: Epignosis wrote: The Doctor wrote: ^The threat of firing people from their jobs, kicking people out of their homes, or in any other way the threat of losing one's means of survival or livelihood are also forms of coercion.  Contracts (something the right loves to tout as freedom) are actually very coercive when there is unequal bargaining power.  Not all coercion exists at the point of a gun.   Contracts are not coercive.  Two or more parties must agree to them.  If you don't like the terms of the agreement, don't sign up!In fact, know what I did 12/31/12?  We fired Bank of America.  Now who has more bargaining power there?  The bank, or us?We also fired our landlord three years ago.  The AC kept going out and they wanted to raise the rent.  We said No.  I was unemployed at the time, by the way.  So was my wife.  We had two kids. Take it or leave it contracts are coercive.  And when you need a job or a place to live (or when every job or more often every place to live has the exact same terms) and you have no choice, there is coercion. Take it or leave it contracts are not coercive.  They allow a choice.  TAKE IT.  OR LEAVE IT.  If I must use Wikipedia:Coercion (<span ="nowrap"><small>pron.:</small> <span title="Representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet IPA" ="IPA">/</span><span ="IPA"><span title="'k' in 'kind'" style="border-bottom:1px dotted">k</span></span><span ="IPA"><span title="/oʊ/ long 'o' in 'bode'" style="border-bottom:1px dotted">oʊ</span></span><span ="IPA"><span title="/ˈ/ primary stress follows" style="border-bottom:1px dotted">ˈ</span></span><span ="IPA"><span title="/ɜr/ 'ir' in 'bird'" style="border-bottom:1px dotted">ɜr</span></span><span ="IPA"><span title="/ʃ/ 'sh' in 'shy'" style="border-bottom:1px dotted">ʃ</span></span><span ="IPA"><span title="/ən/ 'on' in ''" style="border-bottom:1px dotted">ən</span></span><span title="Representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet IPA" ="IPA">/</span></span>) is the practice of forcing another party to act in an involuntary manner (whether through action or inaction) by use of threats or intimidation or some other form of pressure or force. In law, coercion is codified as the duress crime. 'Threats, intimidation, or some other form of pressure or force' is pretty broad actually, as it should be because the word does not have the narrow meaning your placing on it.

Thanks man.  I was just about to point out to Rob that "other form of pressure or force" at the very least leaves open my interpretation of coercion.  So, Rob, are you saying that no one can exert economic pressure on another to force them to make a choice to do something they wouldn't otherwise do? 

Epignosis wrote: dtguitarfan wrote: I believe there are more important issues than abortion, for the simple fact that it HAS been legal for multiple decades now. I believe there are more important issues than Dream Theater, for the simple fact that they HAVE been on Prog Archieves for a long time now.Wow.  So stupid.

You're oversimplifying my position. I am Pro-Life, yet for some reason have been recently rooting for the party that is usually Pro-Choice - why is that? Well, first let's start off with the fact that abortion has been legal for quite a while even though there have been many Pro-Life leaders elected. So one has to ask "are these leaders liars or are they incompetent?" To some degree I believe both. I think the absolutist positions they have taken and the way they have vilified their opponents has increased the resistance rather than caused any progress. And the fact that these leaders have lied about so many other subjects, even challenging scientifically and mathematically provable ideas, has led me to question their sincerity/sanity.

On a sidenote that I feel is related to that last sentence, I'm reading a very interesting book called "Who Is This Man?" that seeks to explore the person of Jesus. The last chapter was about education and how it has its roots in early Christianity. The auther makes some very interesting points about how Jesus added a phrase - "and all your mind" to the commandment to love God with your heart and soul. He points out how many of the preserved texts of pagan scholars owe the fact that they have been preserved to monks from the early church who copied not only Christian scrolls but pagan writings as well. The point is that the Church should not be in the business of scoffing at knowledge and learning, but embracing it, even if that means challenging ideas long held fast by the church - the intellectual muscle grows through resistance just as any other muscles do. Unfortunately, the movement of "the Christian Right" seems to have made it their business to encourage their followers to avoid anything that comes from an opposing viewpoint, and in doing so they have begun to turn their followers into mindless barbarians.

Edited by Slartibartfast - January 03 2013 at 14:24

Way to go Silhouette Man

I hope he's a Prog fan.

Feel free to ignore this, too:

The Case Against Billionaires

"So if it were true that the world’s economies rely on their super-rich to do well, as today’s oligarch-inspired, right-wing economics argues, then why are world's "austerity" economies doing so poorly?   

It’s because billionaires are not job creators, they are somewhere between symbiotes and parasites. That’s not meant as a personal insult against billionaires, many of whom are decent people. But it’s meant as a statement of common sense. If vast fortunes are being hoarded in the hands of very few people who can’t possibly spend that much money in their lifetime or their kid’s lifetime or even their kid’s, kid’s, kid’s, kid’s, lifetime, then it’s essentially being wasted."

http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/13698-the-case-against-billionaires

Ambient Hurricanes wrote: ^^Ignoring Slarti's first post, a blatant strawman, I would like to talk about government-funded higher education.  I've heard it said that "education is emancipatory," and I wonder if higher education might be something that we make available to all Americans.  The GI bill facilitated a huge economic boom in the years following WWII, after all.  I don't think it's a good idea now (we're in so much debt that we can't be taking on any more expenses) but if, theoretically, we did reduce the debt, would it be good or bad for the federal government to take a further role in supporting higher education?  What about state governments?

If you really have to make something available to everybody, start with health care. Though the education thing is too f**ked up here and the bubble will explode. More people will go under for wanting a useless bachelor's degree than for a house. But even more go under for health bills. 

A bachelor's degree is getting rather worthless now. Imagine how devalued it will be when everyone has one. Sure your population might be smarter...might....but:

Negoba wrote: Ambient Hurricanes wrote: Slartibartfast wrote: Feel free to ignore this, too: The Case Against Billionaires "So if it were true that the world’s economies rely on their super-rich to do well, as today’s oligarch-inspired, right-wing economics argues, then why are world's "austerity" economies doing so poorly?    It’s because billionaires are not job creators, they are somewhere between symbiotes and parasites. That’s not meant as a personal insult against billionaires, many of whom are decent people. But it’s meant as a statement of common sense. If vast fortunes are being hoarded in the hands of very few people who can’t possibly spend that much money in their lifetime or their kid’s lifetime or even their kid’s, kid’s, kid’s, kid’s, lifetime, then it’s essentially being wasted." http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/13698-the-case-against-billionaires No, I won't ignore that, because it's an actual contribution to the discussion, not a disrespectful caricature of people you disagree with. I read the article, and although some of it makes sense, there's a big flaw in the guy's argument; namely, that he's right about billionaires not stimulating the economy by purchasing, but ignores how they do stimulate the economy by creating products.  The rich provide the supply, the middle class provide the demand.  They wouldn't be so "reluctant" to invest in business if the government didn't do everything in their power to make business as unprofitable as possible, which seems to be their policy right now. Still, do rich people really need all their money?  Probably not.  But they have earned it, and it's their right to keep it.  It's not like there are no charitable rich people in this world, either.  Bill Gates, for example, has both created thousands of jobs and donated billions of dollars to charity.  I think the government should focus on building and supporting the middle class instead of tearing down rich people.  And no, you don't need to take money away from rich people to support the middle class. This intrigues me, though: Our most prominent Founding Father warned of the dangers of individuals becoming mind-bogglingly rich. In a letter to Joseph Milligan on April 6, 1816, Thomas Jefferson explicitly suggested that if individuals became so rich that their wealth could influence or challenge government, then their wealth should be decreased upon their death. He wrote, "If the overgrown wealth of an individual be deemed dangerous to the State, the best corrective is the law of equal inheritance to all in equal degree..." That doesn't sound like conservatism or liberalism to me.  It sounds like Distributism, an economic system which I'm not sure would actually work, but which I've heard about and am interested in exploring further.   The question is whether concentrating wealth in individuals encourages economic robustness any more than simply encouraging the currencies, goods, and services to circulate naturalistically. I would posit that the hoarding that is what makes billionaires billionaires does nothing to encourage the economy and certainly is worse than a more evened out wealth distribution where the entire population both supplies and consumes.   Having a few hoard the wealth, and then control the flow, is exactly what most decry when governments do it (except government at least have to pretend it's for the good of society).

That's why I find Jefferson's statement and the philosophy of distributism intriguing, because it claims to get the wealth out of the hands of the government (liberalism/socialism) and out of the hands of the privileged few (capitalism) and to get the "means of production" into everyone's hands.

^Regardless of the veracity of the Christian faith, it's inaccurate to describe God as being "invented by medieval dickweeds."  From history, we can say that our first record of the Christian God appears in the ancient Jewish Torah.  Christianity, which claims to be the fulfillment of Judaism, appeared in the first century AD.  The Christians followed Jesus Christ, saying that he was the Son of God, who had come to inaugurate his kingdom in the world, died and rose for our sins, and would return in judgement.  He's not an imaginary friend, He was a real person.  The leaders of the early church were not "medieval" and they were not "dickweeds;" they were leaders of a fringe group who must have really believed what they said they did, because in the first few centuries AD, being a Christian was a really good way to get yourself killed.