"Freedom" thread or something

Epignosis wrote: thellama73 wrote: Epignosis wrote: Watched Atlas Shrugged last night. I thought they did a very good job with it (I can see why some criticize it as a wooden film, but it's based on a wooden novel, so).  The scenery around the railroads was amazing. But even though it's somewhat exaggerated, it does a fine job showing how big government is a tool used by big money.  Rich companies use the government to impose regulations that restrict competition.  The first one or the second one? I think I liked the first one better, although neither are examples of great cinema. Still, they did a good job getting the message across and I am glad that they are out there now. First one (we fired DirecTV and hired Netflix).  Looking forward to the second one though.

I heard about that.  Read an article in the paper saying that with the loss of your business, DirecTV has lost 50% of its stock value and is planning on filing bankruptcy.  One executive was quoted as saying "Things were fine until Rob fired us" through tear-stained eyes. 

The Doctor wrote: Epignosis wrote: thellama73 wrote: Epignosis wrote: Watched Atlas Shrugged last night. I thought they did a very good job with it (I can see why some criticize it as a wooden film, but it's based on a wooden novel, so).  The scenery around the railroads was amazing. But even though it's somewhat exaggerated, it does a fine job showing how big government is a tool used by big money.  Rich companies use the government to impose regulations that restrict competition.  The first one or the second one? I think I liked the first one better, although neither are examples of great cinema. Still, they did a good job getting the message across and I am glad that they are out there now. First one (we fired DirecTV and hired Netflix).  Looking forward to the second one though. I heard about that.  Read an article in the paper saying that with the loss of your business, DirecTV has lost 50% of its stock value and is planning on filing bankruptcy.  One executive was quoted as saying "Things were fine until Rob fired us" through tear-stained eyes.

My intention was not to crush them and force them into poverty, no more than an employer would want an unsatisfactory employee to kill himself after being let go.

It's a big market, and no one person has unilateral power.  That's the beauty of it.  DirecTV is welcome to find another customer to replace me.  A fired employee is welcome to find employment elsewhere.

The way you talk, it seems as though you think employers must be forced to retain people.  Why would an employer get rid of someone who does a good job and brings profit to the company?


Edited by Epignosis - January 26 2013 at 16:02

Interesting interview about the future of the US economy (short term is going to be rough):

manofmystery wrote: If they don't care enough to do it themselves that doesn't mean they get use the government to do it for them.

That is exactly what it means. That's what government is there for: To do the things that wouldn't happen in a free market. Now you argue that none of these things should happen because you see freedom as a value in itself. I don't. I see freedom as a means to an end, and I don't believe it is immoral for an institution to restrict a person's freedom as long as that person has some sort of control over the institution in return. It is not an elegant solution, but it allows us to deal with problems that would otherwise be left unsolved. The problem in the US is the lack of control the population has over its own government. I believe this is mainly a result of your voting system.

Epignosis made a post that touched on, in my opinion, a very important point: His personal experience with the government has been disastrous, and I believe that is the primary fuel for his libertarian beliefs. I'm sympathetic to that, and I understand it. My experience with my government has been much better, and this is why I believe this is not a fundamental issue, but rather a specific one. Who knows, maybe libertarianism might be the right solution for the US. What irks me about libertarianism as a political philosophy is that it tries to advocate a certain approach to everything regardless of context. As appealing as it might sound in theory (and I do think it sounds appealing), it leads to problems in practice, like every political philosophy does (hence why I don't subscribe to one). When confronted with these problems, you seem to brush them away simply because they cannot be solved in the context of your philosophy. I don't do that. I look at every issue separately and try to decide which solution is the better (or less disagreeable one). This means that yes, I would rather force everybody to pay my medical bills that die at age forty of a wrecked body and psyche. And from the other perspective, I would rather be forced to contribute my share to everyone else's medical bills than let that happen to any of them. It also means that I am undecided on the issue of abortion and am likely to remain undecided, because I have deliberated over both sides of the argument and couldn't discard the points of either side. There are certainly patterns to my views, but there is no recipe, no algorithm and no overarching concept that influences my individual decisions. [/endoftangentialrantthatnobodyaskedfor]

manofmystery wrote: For example, why should I be made to accept a government protected product just because they reached a minimal standard (which, as I've mentioned, they likely had a hand in creating).

Let me respond to that twice, once from your basis and once from mine. First from yours: Because you as a consumer are not entitled to receive the product as you want the company to produce it. The company offers you the product, and then you decide to buy it or not. You have no influence over how the company produces the product. Don't like the regulation? Don't buy the product. If everybody stops buying the product, the regulation will have to be reversed. In other words, you can make the argument that regulation infringes on the company's rights to produce whatever they want, but you can't make the argument that it infringes on your rights to buy whatever you want. You only have the right to buy what is actually offered.

Now from mine: Because you are the nation's sovereign. You put the government that passed the regulation into place. If you don't like what they did, try to get them out of office. You're not guaranteed to succeed, because you're just once voice in 300 million, but it's not like you're powerless.

manofmystery wrote: What I was saying is that government action doesn't resolve it (controlled market).

Yes it does. I think you're misunderstanding what I identify as "the problem". "The problem" is the issue with the Nestle product that got people to boycott it in the first place. If government regulation is put into place to prevent companies from producing products that contain "the problem", "the problem" is obviously solved. That is all I'm saying. I'm making no argument about the overall effect on the market, and I'm not trying to refute yours. I know that government action limits options.

manofmystery wrote: Perhaps the "need" for an alternative product exists because not everyone wishes to use the same product as everyone else.

Well, that would be a different issue with no connection to the Nestle issue. I'm not saying government regulation solves that issue.

HarbouringTheSoul wrote: Epignosis made a post that touched on, in my opinion, a very important point: His personal experience with the government has been disastrous, and I believe that is the primary fuel for his libertarian beliefs. I'm sympathetic to that, and I understand it.

Thank you, but that's not my main reason.  See below.

HarbouringTheSoul wrote: My experience with my government has been much better, and this is why I believe this is not a fundamental issue, but rather a specific one. Who knows, maybe libertarianism might be the right solution for the US. What irks me about libertarianism as a political philosophy is that it tries to advocate a certain approach to everything regardless of context.

It's called principle.  I adhere to the principle that no one has a right to deprive innocent people of their life, liberty, or property.

Once you establish the power of the mob (i.e., government) to help itself to the property of anyone for a "good" reason, you have established the power of the mob to help itself to the property of anyone for any reason.

HarbouringTheSoul wrote: As appealing as it might sound in theory (and I do think it sounds appealing), it leads to problems in practice, like every political philosophy does (hence why I don't subscribe to one). When confronted with these problems, you seem to brush them away simply because they cannot be solved in the context of your philosophy.

Libertarianism has never been in practice, that I know of.  Can you point to any specific problems that have actually happened under a libertarian establishment?  If you can, I would be glad to not brush it / them away.

I read this a little bit ago. It's fairly long, but it was one of the most interesting article I've ever read on South Park.

http://mises.org/daily/6335/Cartman-Shrugged

^ Yep, it was pretty great for while though.....

Good article David, thanks

JJLehto wrote: horsewithteeth11 wrote: I read this a little bit ago. It's fairly long, but it was one of the most interesting article I've ever read on South Park. http://mises.org/daily/6335/Cartman-Shrugged Before even reading it, will say back in the day South Park really was ground breaking. Took a non party (isnt that nice?) non biased stand on their beliefs, swinging their sword at ANYONE deemed worthy, and bashed PC, religion, pushed the envelopes and all that. Was pretty funny too. Also was a voice of libertarianism before most people really knew what it was (post 2008) While I didnt agree with the philosophy then it was nice to hear something different. By their own admittance got real preachy and up their ass with messages, I knew they lost it when they went so easy on Obama after his election.

Allow me to go on a little apolitical rant about South Park:

I used to love that show. I thought it was the funniest, wittiest, most clever thing on television (the libertarian angle was just icing on the cake.) I feel really betrayed by how much Trey and Matt have stopped caring about it though. The last few seasons have seen the laziest writing I think I have ever seen.

It is obvious that their method for thinking up new shows has become simply turning on the TV and parodying whatever happens to be on that day. "Oh, I know! Let's do Whale Wars/Hoarders/High School Musical/Intervention/Jersey Shore/Super Nanny/Ghost Hunters/The History Channel/The Food Network/inception/The Glenn Beck Show/Mad Money/Human Centipede! Won't that be funny?"

The older shows hold up over time because they have interesting stories and are not merely references to fads that no one will remember in ten years. Also, they now seem to think that they only need one joke per episode. "Shake weight looks like w**king! Let's point that out every three minutes! We have our episode!" "I'm not just sure, I'm HIV positive! That's funny, let's all go home early and call it a night."

People excuse this kind of laziness by saying that they churn out the episodes in one week and that's really hard. Yes, it is really hard, but they used to do it and it worked fine. Now, if they can't maintain quality at that pace, they should slow down. People also say that they were working on The Book of Mormon and that's why the episodes are not as good. Fine, but the episodes they made during work on Bigger, Longer and Uncut were hilarious. If they can't divide their time between two projects and still produce good material, they should either put one of them on hold until they finish the other, or hand over the writing duties to someone else.

I don't know why the decline of South Park angers me so much more than when it happens to other shows, but I guess I just thought better of Trey and Matt and didn't expect them to sell out the way they have.
/rant

^I know, but I thought the creators would have ended it well before it got to this point, because I used to think they had artistic integrity.

Most shows are controlled by a network and cycle through many writers on their way down the drain. WIth the case of South Park, it has been the same two guys in control all the time and I thought they would not want to see their creation sink so low.


Edited by thellama73 - January 27 2013 at 15:30

South Park a bit like the Simpsons in its decline.....

I remember MoM once made the most hilarious post about the Simpsons as a rotting, lumbering corpse of its prior self, a show he once loved....