"Freedom" thread or something |
Post Reply | Page <1 122123124125126 294> |
Author | ||||||||||||
JJLehto
Prog Reviewer Joined: April 05 2006 Location: Tallahassee, FL Status: Offline Points: 34550 |
Posted: January 26 2013 at 15:28 | |||||||||||
Its on Netflix eh? I shall check it out
|
||||||||||||
The Doctor
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: June 23 2005 Location: The Tardis Status: Offline Points: 8543 |
Posted: January 26 2013 at 15:51 | |||||||||||
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. |
||||||||||||
I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you?
|
||||||||||||
The T
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: October 16 2006 Location: FL, USA Status: Offline Points: 17493 |
Posted: January 26 2013 at 15:52 | |||||||||||
I'm a Comcast slave. Can't fire then and hire DirectV because of condo regulations
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
Epignosis
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: December 30 2007 Location: Raeford, NC Status: Offline Points: 32550 |
Posted: January 26 2013 at 16:01 | |||||||||||
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 |
||||||||||||
JJLehto
Prog Reviewer Joined: April 05 2006 Location: Tallahassee, FL Status: Offline Points: 34550 |
Posted: January 26 2013 at 20:30 | |||||||||||
Long story short I have free Netflix, so really I have no choice.
|
||||||||||||
manofmystery
Forum Senior Member Joined: January 26 2008 Location: PA, USA Status: Offline Points: 4335 |
Posted: January 26 2013 at 23:59 | |||||||||||
Interesting interview about the future of the US economy (short term is going to be rough):
|
||||||||||||
Time always wins. |
||||||||||||
King of Loss
Prog Reviewer Joined: April 21 2005 Location: Boston, MA Status: Online Points: 16752 |
Posted: January 27 2013 at 02:16 | |||||||||||
It's not as grim as it has been in a lot of countries, simply because of the higher standards that the US has. Even with a 20% decrease, it's not all that bad, but of course a decrease still stinks.
|
||||||||||||
HarbouringTheSoul
Forum Senior Member Joined: May 21 2010 Status: Offline Points: 1199 |
Posted: January 27 2013 at 05:10 | |||||||||||
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]
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.
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.
Well, that would be a different issue with no connection to the Nestle issue. I'm not saying government regulation solves that issue.
If you don't give people the power of legal force over other people, you automatically give them the power of non-legal (not as in illegal, as in "not determined by law") force over other people. If you don't give somebody the power to enforce the law, you allow everybody to break it and thereby give them the opportunity to exert force on other people.
I'm not a "Democrat" per se, but for me it's entirely the opposite. I don't think in terms of utopia at all. I realize that there is no way to solve all problems at once, and I realize that there are situations where all possible solutions create bad outcomes. I'm looking for a way to find the least problematic outcome for each problem on a case-by-case basis. But I do think you think in terms of utopia because you advocate one general approach that you claim will result in the best possible outcome for all situations. The reason I argue primarily against you guys and not Democrats/socialists/marxists/anarchists/whatever else we have here is twofold: a) I find myself disagreeing with you more often than the others, b) you make the stronger and more interesting arguments, so you challenge my own views more.
I agree that any system run by humans will be flawed because humans are flawed. But that doesn't mean that a system that runs by itself (like the free market) is necessarily better. And my goal wouldn't be to minimize injustice based on moral principles (that not everybody might agree on), but rather to find a common approach to solve problems we can agree on.
It's not a disease, but it's a health risk and many people aren't aware just how much of a health risk it is. There's nothing wrong with informing people about it. That doesn't mean we should force people to be healthier though, so I'm in agreement with you as far as that goes.
Then how come it hasn't happened in countries where we already have universal health care? To answer my own question: That would be because in order for exercise to become mandatory, somebody would have to pass a bill regarding that, and I can guarantee you that if that happened, there would be a massive public uproar and politicians would get voted out. I don't know how it is in the US, but German politicians fear the voting public, because they know we can and will fire them if they mess up. Sadly, I suspect it's not the case in the US, because your politicians know that the balance between the two parties will stay roughly the same no matter what they do.
I wouldn't have to change a lot about that sentence to point it right back at you. Just as socialists are prone to ignore the problems that the "command system", as you call it, creates, libertarians are prone to ignore the problems that the free market creates. That's completely natural. How about we all just stop ignoring any problems and try to find a solution that minimizes as many problems as possible of both sides?
No, it doesn't make any economic sense. But I would rather have a solution that makes no economic sense than let people die easily preventable deaths. Edited by HarbouringTheSoul - January 27 2013 at 05:11 |
||||||||||||
dtguitarfan
Forum Senior Member Joined: June 24 2011 Location: Chattanooga, TN Status: Offline Points: 1708 |
Posted: January 27 2013 at 06:48 | |||||||||||
THAT was a helluva good argument. |
||||||||||||
Epignosis
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: December 30 2007 Location: Raeford, NC Status: Offline Points: 32550 |
Posted: January 27 2013 at 07:09 | |||||||||||
Thank you, but that's not my main reason. See below.
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.
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. |
||||||||||||
thellama73
Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: May 29 2006 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 8368 |
Posted: January 27 2013 at 09:28 | |||||||||||
We hear this a lot, so I would like to address it. In the US there are 538 members of congress and 100 senators, as well as the executive branch. Each person only gets to vote on one congressman and two senators, the president and the vice president. That means that even if all your votes were decisive, you would only have the power to elect 1/128th of the legislature, and that's only at the federal level. Plus, there are the unelected members of the supreme court and the regulatory "czars" who do not have to get congressional approval. How can you seriously make the argument that I put the government in place and therefore should have to abide by its decisions? Edited by thellama73 - January 27 2013 at 12:45 |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
horsewithteeth11
Prog Reviewer Joined: January 09 2008 Location: Kentucky Status: Offline Points: 24598 |
Posted: January 27 2013 at 13:33 | |||||||||||
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 |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
JJLehto
Prog Reviewer Joined: April 05 2006 Location: Tallahassee, FL Status: Offline Points: 34550 |
Posted: January 27 2013 at 14:58 | |||||||||||
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. |
||||||||||||
Finnforest
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: February 03 2007 Location: The Heartland Status: Offline Points: 17075 |
Posted: January 27 2013 at 15:03 | |||||||||||
^ Yep, it was pretty great for while though.....
Good article David, thanks |
||||||||||||
...that moment you realize you like "Mob Rules" better than "Heaven and Hell"
|
||||||||||||
JJLehto
Prog Reviewer Joined: April 05 2006 Location: Tallahassee, FL Status: Offline Points: 34550 |
Posted: January 27 2013 at 15:04 | |||||||||||
Even if it was, what does that matter? My personal experiences with companies has been utter sh*t, (was once fired after being thrown under a boss by a manager, and another time very very afraid legal action would be taken against me for simply doing something I was asked to do) As well as my father being disgracefully canned and my mother treated like crap. This fueled my very progressive beliefs. Doc seems to be in a similar boat. I think few people reach "true" beliefs early in their life. It's shaped by your life events, how can it not be? Some may stick to it for life, others grow and move to different ideals, or simply realize they were correct in belief but find better reasons. But yeah, I'll be amazed if most people dont have their political beliefs shaped by life events at first. |
||||||||||||
thellama73
Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: May 29 2006 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 8368 |
Posted: January 27 2013 at 15:20 | |||||||||||
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 |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
The Doctor
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: June 23 2005 Location: The Tardis Status: Offline Points: 8543 |
Posted: January 27 2013 at 15:24 | |||||||||||
^Leaving politics completely aside for the moment (), all shows go through a decline stage, unless they do like a few shows do and end while they're still on top of their game. The problem is, with the same characters, it gets harder and harder to come up with new and interesting story lines. What's happened to South Park (I wouldn't know, I haven't watched it since like Season 8) is inevitable.
Edited by The Doctor - January 27 2013 at 15:25 |
||||||||||||
I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you?
|
||||||||||||
thellama73
Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: May 29 2006 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 8368 |
Posted: January 27 2013 at 15:29 | |||||||||||
^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 |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
JJLehto
Prog Reviewer Joined: April 05 2006 Location: Tallahassee, FL Status: Offline Points: 34550 |
Posted: January 27 2013 at 15:34 | |||||||||||
Nah I agree, doesn't really make me mad since most shows "lose it" except King of the Hill which was still brilliant through to end (haters can hate) but yeah they did get lazy and just haul it in. It is a shame because we did expect better from them, being what they used to make, but what can ya do? Burn out is part of it I'm sure.
Which BTW...Never realized it back in the day but as I got older and more politically savvy....there was a lot of subtle political humor/observation in King of the Hill, both liberal and conservative, but politics in general. And Hank's hatred of laziness and leeching, focus on hard work and responsibility. I think there was quite a populist libertarian streak in KotH, besides being funny as hell and good social commentary. On this TV note...my infamous Daily Show rants. John Stewart used to be wickedly funny and my favorite guy in High School. But he became quite dreadfully unfunny, and it happens to go hand in hand with his becoming a pundit. My liberal friends went ballistic, like I can't find someone I agree with as unfunny...it is sad when people sell out. And no, Stewart is NOT a force of the left Aint changing any minds, just fires up those who already agree. It's hard to pull a Chapelle Show and end it before you get old and stale and spin your wheels. He just ended it too soon Edited by JJLehto - January 27 2013 at 15:35 |
||||||||||||
Finnforest
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: February 03 2007 Location: The Heartland Status: Offline Points: 17075 |
Posted: January 27 2013 at 15:38 | |||||||||||
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.... |
||||||||||||
...that moment you realize you like "Mob Rules" better than "Heaven and Hell"
|
||||||||||||
Post Reply | Page <1 122123124125126 294> |
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |