Free Press

[j_b]

change must come from within by people who truly respect each other

 

respect, such a beautiful image ... I know I feel a lot more respectful while driving my tank.

[MtnGoat]

"You think anything goes; I think we can collectively (as individuals with individual voices!) decide what is acceptable and what isn't. Pretty basic, really."

 

We have a different view of the morality of collectivism. There are two kinds of collective action, one where many individuals choose something and do it themselves, thus creating collective decision while entirely respecting the rights of those who disagree. And the other route, where a "collective" threatens the rest to get what they want done .

 

If a "collective" *actually* wants something, they'll choose it on their own. If the "collective" in question will not implement it's own claimed values on it's own, it can scarcely legitimize threatening others to make choices it's own members won't even make on their own.

 

If enough people agree with you and refuse to buy or drive SUV's, the collective will, through personal choice, would result in market collapse for SUV's, and they would vanish. Since I have no "right" to force you to drive one, and no "right" to force anyone to make them, and cannot capitalize to do it myself, your wishes would be met without *once* violating my rights, or yours.

 

All you seem to want, is the shortcut which frees those who *claim* to not want SUV's from actually, really taking that stand. By threatening other people, they can achieve their claimed value, when they will not choose it themselves, or conversely are not a sufficient majority.

 

If the number who agree with you is great as many claim it is, the result will be as I describe. The result is a direct outcome of peoples actual commitment to the values they claim. Neither I nor anyone else should be a tool for your values simply because people won't actually choose what they claim to value.

 

"We collectively decide that murder isn't allowed, because it's an impingement on other indivuals' rights."

 

And this is entirely consistent.

 

"In the same vein, we can decide that SUVs must be regulated (and tanks!), because they are an impingement on other individuals' rights."

 

They are not. We elementally disagree. I have no right to make you drive one, and you have no right to impose your view of "safety" on me. I do not hold you at gunpoint myself or by proxy, and demand you stay off the road, choose a vehicle you don't want, or figure your risks anyway but the way you want. Your intention of making anyone not choose an SUV forces *your* risk assessments on them.

 

Changing peoples choices by law in favor of your view of risk doesn't eliminate risk, it just tilts it your way by threat, while exposing them to alternate risks *specifically* due to your threats. There is no right to "feel" safe, just as there is no right to not be offended.

 

 

 

Edited January 11, 2003 by MtnGoat

[Uncle_Tricky]

MtnGoat: ever *vigilant* against collectivism.

 

[MtnGoat]

looks like justice to me...

[sexual_chocolate]

I have no right to make you drive one, and you have no right to impose your view of "safety" on me.

 

Someone's view of safety is imposed on you every time you take to the streets. Speed limits, stop signs, turn signals, etc., rules that most people seem not to view as an egregious burden. Only you, my friend.

 

And as far as my earlier comments about the fringe nature of Libertarianism: Fringe status hardly negates the legitimacy of any given movement, but I checked on the stats, just for fun....

 

Ralph Nader: 2, 781, 109 votes (almost qualified for matching funds with limited tv exposure).

 

Harry Browne: 382, 869 votes. That's quite a showing for the "third most powerful" party in American politics, no?

 

By the way, in no way do I attempt to dismiss Libertarian philosophy on the grounds of its (lack of) popularity. We were simply speaking of its relevance, and you defended its popularity and power. I beg to differ. I would also tend to think that its irrelevance as a political power is tied closely to its naive idealism (plus total hegemony enjoyed by the two major parties), expressed quite clearly by its leading spokesman at CC.com. Some thought Gore to be "wonkish"?

[sexual_chocolate]

Oh, and by the way: Good Afternoon!

[sexual_chocolate]

This isn't going to be a one-liner, is it?

[Fairweather]

...TO SexChoc, and all those who voted for Ralph Nader or The Socialist Workers Party in the 2000 election....

 

 

THANKYOU!!!!! THANKYOU!!!! THANKYOU!!!!

 

(....but we won't be needing your assistance 2004 )

[MtnGoat]

"Someone's view of safety is imposed on you every time you take to the streets. Speed limits, stop signs, turn signals, etc., rules that most people seem not to view as an egregious burden. Only you, my friend."

 

Well, my friend, I've already made the argument that no ones "pie in the sky" pure principle can totally work in an imperfect world, and that adjustments must be made. I don't think I've said I'm agaisnt stop lights or turn signals, because I'm not!

 

Traffic lights, stop signs and turn signals impose an outcome specific choice on no one. Wether you drive a car, a motorcycle, a truck, a bus, an evil SUV, (or a tank), as long as you meet these minimal standards you are good to go.

 

This is an example of non specific infrastructure laws, such as don't cheat on contracts, which support free use in many, many different ways, without specifically forcing any one person to meet goals different from those imposed on others, merely due to their choice of vehicle.

 

As for presidential elections, if that's your yardstick for success, I can't really argue with that outcome. In terms of membership, they have the 3rd largest, and as measured by people holding office, they have 500+ accross the nation, something no other third party can match.

 

At this time, most of the offices are local ones, but that's to be expected for a party a few decades old I think. I claim libertarians support *true* grass roots effort, where else will they begin?

 

Besides, as the big two become increasingly restrictive, as we can see occurring today as the republicans pile on drug laws and damage some civil liberties, and the Dems imposing racial quotas, supporting massive taxation and continually trying for imposition of socialist health care, they create more consitutencies for us.

 

"Some thought Gore to be "wonkish"?"

 

I can't really figure out why folks talk about how complex a world is, how we need people who understand that, and then complain about discussing it's complexities. The matters we talk about are far bigger than three sentence answers will handle.

 

Nor can I figure out what is more naive idealism than parties who figure the govt cares more about it's citizens, and knows what's "best" for them, than the citizens itself. People will complain all day long about the evil corporations, and ignore that govt beaurocracies have their *own* internal reasons for existence, are entirely dependent on taking money rather than bargaining for it, and when they make mistakes, their mistakes are forced upon every single persons their laws cover. Or the naive idealism of folks whose inclinations, when met with people who don't agree, is "lets force them". Don't like what they sell? Force em to do what you want. Don't like who they hire? Lets force 'em. Don't like what they drive? Lets force them. Yup, now that's real enlightenment and caring cupcake.

 

Edited January 11, 2003 by MtnGoat

[sexual_chocolate]

Nor can I figure out what is more naive idealism than parties who figure the govt cares more about it's citizens, and knows what's "best" for them, than the citizens itself.

 

"By the People, For the People."

A representative government, with individuals voted into office who enact policy changes that the individual citizens want. Somewhat taken over by monied special-interests (often money "buys" access), but still theoretically sound, in my estimation(?). So you see, it's not really some abstract "government" disconnected from the people, it's the people themselves. I don't understand why this is difficult to comprehend. (This idea works best with active citizen (and non-citizen) involvement.)

 

Traffic lights, stop signs and turn signals impose an outcome specific choice on no one.

 

Of course they do! Without outcome specificity, no regulation would exist in the first place! (The outcome in this case is an ordered traffic system, beneficial to most individuals most of the time.) In the same way, if a particular entity (SUV?) is deemed a "disordering" agent, it can likewise be regulated.

 

wonk

n. Slang

1. A student who studies excessively; a grind.

2. One who studies an issue or a topic thoroughly or excessively: “leading a talkathon of policy wonks in a methodical effort to build consensus for his programs” (Michael Kranish).

 

I used it loosely, concentrating on its initial definition: "grind".

 

I agree also that complex issues cannot be discussed with overt brevity, yet much can be said with few words.

[allthumbs]

There is no nonsense so errant that it cannot be made the creed of the vast majority by adequate governmental action.

[Fairweather]

Mtn Goat,

 

You're too kind to SC. Communists deserve no safe harbor.

 

Although I admire your well thought out responses to the many lefties here, you surely realize by now that your efforts are for naught. No amount of data you present; no logic or common sense you try to bring to the debate, will sway the likes of the "blame America first" types. J_B, Sexual Chocolate, Nercmicron, Flash not-so-Amazing in particular only heap derision on you when you present the evidence or partake of the debate they request. So why not just take off the gloves once in a while? SC in particular, who fancies herself (himself?) part of the Lennin-youth corps, and rarely presents evidence to back up her claims, needs a good verbal whoopin' now and then. Why not have a little fun?

 

 

 

 

[allthumbs]

Hey, I never thought about the possibility. Could Sexual Chocolate be a GURL?

[Peter_Puget]

The subject line while funny is another example of J_B being in error! See the Prana thread in spray. I just wish I had taken Dwayner's advice in sport climbing fashion to heed a year ago!

 

 

 

Quote:

"PP who spent several threads demonizing arabs and under duress may have acknowledged small defects with israeli "democracy". (actually I don't think you acknowledged anything despite mass evidence)"

 

PP's reply:

I invite interested parties to review the threads and how J_B repeatedly lies and distorts facts. I enjoy a good debate but sadly tired of J_B refusing to address anything and out and out lie.

 

Further quote:

"and what is my position?"

 

PP's reply:

Since you believe that the VA study closes the case on the debate I assume your position is simply one that you are in agreement with its conclusions. Some of which you note in your above post. Seems simple to me.

 

Quote:

"I read the NYT every day and I rarely find a progressive slant to their stories, on the contrary, on bottom line issues such as the economy and foreign policy the differences with the rest of the conservative press are minimal especially if one accounts for the entire political spectrum. So to be frank, I don't take your examples too seriously."

 

PP's reply:

Ah minimal! You see; you do agree there is a difference. Such minimal differences are in fact called "bias". What you would wish to argue is what to call that bias. You got the direction correct though. Bravo! I would suggest that since you are so far to the left, that what appears centrist to you just might be somewhere to the left of McGovern. My question remains: why not provide an analysis of how my examples are not convincing? Help me and perhaps some lurker lost in the wilderness find our way to redemption.

 

Quote:

"Anyhow I was not specifically discussing your examples but your unability to present a comprehensive analysis of the NYT or the press in general and yet you still claim the existence of a liberal bias."

 

PP's reply:

J-B you are doing it again! You reply appeared to be a resonse (and agreement) with my claim that I couldn't provide an analysis of the whole of US media. Here is a quote from my post that you used to introduce your reply: Can MG or PP provide a detail documented analysis all the US media? Certainly not.

 

Now I have presented several diverse examples of what I considered bias in the NYT. Examples which you do not find convincing. Fine. But since my entire "argument"was based on examples, if you were truly discussing my "unability to present a comprehensive analysis of the NYT"b] how were you doing so? Even if I agreed completely with the VA study and thought its conclusions were the gospel truth, I do not see how the study (from 1998) would apply to my current analysis of the NYT. Perhaps the professors at VA have a time machine or perhaps this is yet another example of your belief that asserting something makes it true. Anyway your claim to be addressing my inability to form (to your mind anyway) a convincing NYT argument seems to be utter nonesense on its face.

 

PP

 

[sexual_chocolate]

I would suggest that since you are so far to the left, that what appears centrist to you just might be somewhere to the left of McGovern.

 

Oh my! I don't think you are at all familiar with the "left", are you? NIXON was further left in some ways than Clinton was. He enacted social programs that "modern" Democrats would have run from with their tails tucked between their legs!

[sexual_chocolate]

In response to

 

Poster: Fairweather

Subject: Re: Free Press

 

Mtn Goat,

 

You're too kind to SC. Communists deserve no safe harbor.

 

Although I admire your well thought out responses to the many lefties here, you surely realize by now that your efforts are for naught. No amount of data you present; no logic or common sense you try to bring to the debate, will sway the likes of the "blame America first" types. J_B, Sexual Chocolate, Nercmicron, Flash not-so-Amazing in particular only heap derision on you when you present the evidence or partake of the debate they request. So why not just take off the gloves once in a while? SC in particular, who fancies herself (himself?) part of the Lennin-youth corps, and rarely presents evidence to back up her claims, needs a good verbal whoopin' now and then. Why not have a little fun?

 

 

 

Fairweather: Since Mtgoat is a proper Libertarian, I doubt he will fight your battles for you. But the opposite might not be true, since he favors using proxy armies for his *own* benefit!

 

PS: Found any Communists in your neighborhood lately? I hear they're starting to sneak around again. Careful!

[sexual_chocolate]

One last note: As Mtgoat himself suggests, and with which I fully agree, we cannot live in a perfect system, and compromise is necessary. As a matter of fact, we here in the US live with a system that is a compromise between socialism and capitalism. It would be fair to call it us a quasi-socialist country, OR a quasi-capitalist country. Either one works.

[MtnGoat]

"A representative government, with individuals voted into office who enact policy changes that the individual citizens want. "

 

And? I must have missed where "wanting" became validation of taking someone elses right to determine their own values and actions.

 

"Somewhat taken over by monied special-interests (often money "buys" access), but still theoretically sound, in my estimation(?)."

 

What do you think will happen when you take the power from those who hold it in the first place? When decisions are in the hands of the individuals themselves, anyone wanting to convince them has to make a case directly to them and get them to choose differently.

 

When you've removed that power from them and concentrated it where it can be purchased, you've created a situation where pressure only needs to be applied in a limited place, in order to result in changes *enforced* on everyone in the purview of those being suborned. The reason that power can be bought is precisely *because* it is no longer in the hands of those whose lives are affected.

 

"So you see, it's not really some abstract "government" disconnected from the people, it's the people themselves. I don't understand why this is difficult to comprehend. "

 

When a citizen has to convince millions of people to change a law effecting their rights, when they own that right to begin with, that innately makes it disconnected from them. I don't understand why that is hard to understand.

 

Right now, any one of us can march right into a car dealership and use *our* values to pick out a gas hog or a fuel sipper. Given the ideas of some here, one of these options would vanish, and to make the same decision involves begging millions to change their minds. If that's not abstract and disconnected, I don't know what is. Having to convince millions instead of making your own choice is as disconnected as it gets.

 

"(This idea works best with active citizen (and non-citizen) involvement.)"

 

I posit making *your* choices, and allowing others to make theirs, works best with active citizen involvement.

 

 

Edited January 12, 2003 by MtnGoat

[MtnGoat]

I see your point concerning those I do battle with here, Fairwether, but it's just not my style. Face to face is where I prefer rockin' and rollin' for fun, where body language, facial expressions, and tone can be perceived and take the sting out of racuous disagreement. What's OK face to face often looks far harsher in print, IMO.

 

From time to time I'll get a sarcastic depending on how a poster is responding t me, but I try specifically to keep that to a minimum. Often though, direct and pointed questions are taken as attacks, but usually by someone who doesn't like the way a very direct question is being framed.

 

Besides, by remaining steadfast and relatively low key, I can ask direct simple questions, and allow them to define themselves by how they answer. When other observers see one side asking plain old questions, and the other responding with attacks and dodges, bit by bit it become obvious just who is not being forthright. Some of my opponents here don't really engage in that much if at all, such as SC for example, while others engage in it all the time, and all it takes is a casual thread read to find those.

 

Anytime I can ask regular 'ol questions and get an opponent to break into personal attacks, generally about "you don't care" and "you're killing the earth", I've gained some ground. I've never been able to understand the connection between "caring", and threatening other peaceful people to do things my way to prove I "care", but that's for another time. If it takes "caring" to essentially agree to gang up on the next guy and threaten them with jail because I don't like some peaceful activity they are engaging in, I'll pass on showing my "caring" that way.

 

I do not intend to change those I debate with really, but to plant the seeds of doubt in casual readers and lurkers who generally outnumber active posters. I know it works, because I get PM's from them telling me to keep it up.

Edited January 12, 2003 by MtnGoat

[Peter_Puget]

Not sure your point here but I thought I'd take this opportunity esp since MG did not bring it up. see below:

 

Quoting SC:

"By the People, For the People."

A representative government, with individuals voted into office who enact policy changes that the individual citizens want.

 

PP's Comments:

School house rock isn't the best place to learn about your goverment. Leaving the various types [local,state,federal]of government aside what you said is clearly untrue. I would suggest a quick review of the Federalist Papers esp #10. I am going on memory here so 10 maay be wrong but you'll learn something anyway. Also a quck review of the Const. might be useful!

 

PP

 

[sexual_chocolate]

PP: Instead of directing me (with uncertainty even) to outside sources, tell me in your own words what you find objectionable in what I said.

[sexual_chocolate]

In response to

 

Poster: MtnGoat

Subject: Re: Free Press

 

"A representative government, with individuals voted into office who enact policy changes that the individual citizens want. "

 

And? I must have missed where "wanting" became validation of taking someone elses right to determine their own values and actions.

 

 

One can "determine" what one's own values and actions might be. If one's values and actions endanger others, and impede others' rights, then those actions and values can be deemed inappropriate, and, as such, be regulated. That is my belief, at least.

 

What do you think will happen when you take the power from those who hold it in the first place? When decisions are in the hands of the individuals themselves, anyone wanting to convince them has to make a case directly to them and get them to choose differently.

 

Vigilantism? We have a court system for a reason, we have recourse for a reason. Decisions are in the hands of individuals. Maybe if you gave me a concrete example to work with, I might understand you a bit better.

 

When a citizen has to convince millions of people to change a law effecting their rights, when they own that right to begin with, that innately makes it disconnected from them. I don't understand why that is hard to understand.

 

Again, a concrete example might explain better what you're getting at.

 

Right now, any one of us can march right into a car dealership and use *our* values to pick out a gas hog or a fuel sipper. Given the ideas of some here, one of these options would vanish, and to make the same decision involves begging millions to change their minds. If that's not abstract and disconnected, I don't know what is. Having to convince millions instead of making your own choice is as disconnected as it gets.

 

Ahh, an example! The evil SUV. Has anyone suggested banning SUVs? I haven't, but I will endorse regulation addressing the problems that can easily be addressed, ie. improving bumper design, increased fuel efficiency, reduced weight, roll-over attenuation. I suppose you might think "the marketplace" will take care of these design flaws; a naive position. Others on the street, innocent children without decision-making wherewithal, etc., should not suffer the consequences of poor decision-making by some adult, IMO.

 

I posit making *your* choices, and allowing others to make theirs, works best with active citizen involvement.

 

Agreed, as long as my behavior and the other's don't create needless addressable dangers to our existence!

[allthumbs]

SC, you are sooooo out there. Chew on this for awhile --

 

Just heard a really interesting theory and that is to keep the dividends tax on individuals but allow corps a deduction for dividends.

 

Struck me as pretty smart, not sure I'm totally on board but it would certainly give one the most bang for the buck and incentives to the right folks (corps) if what you want is to get them to pay out dividends...

 

Taking the tax off dividends will lead to upward pressure in stock prices as well as a possible change in the way corporations do business. Corporations will look to making capital investments in cash from increased stock sales as well as holding back part of the profit used to pay dividends. Currently the system encourages debt instruments for capital expenses as these can be written off as tax deductions. The current system taxes the dividend at the corporate level as well as the shareholder level (double taxation).

 

The average investor in the stock market is 44 years old with an income of $57,000 and an average portfolio value of $28,000. Also that individual is more likely to only have a High School or B.S. degree.

 

This tax reduction has targeted exactly what it needs to. Its long term and it will happen. It’s not only for the "Rich"; everyone will benefit.

 

trask out

 

[MtnGoat]

"If one's values and actions endanger others, and impede others' rights, then those actions and values can be deemed inappropriate, and, as such, be regulated. That is my belief, at least."

 

It seems we agree then. The only problem is, what are "other's rights"? Since I elementally disagree with cases where "rights" involve positive action coerced by threat, we have an impasse. You seem to believe in positive rights, where one's rights include forcing action from others, where as the basis I'm coming from protects "negative" rights, the right to not be forced to serve others.

 

the rest I'll address later. see ya.

[mattp]

Yo PP-

I read the New York Times today, scanning for possible liberal bias. What I saw was lots of news, that I couldn't really tell was either liberal or conservative, and there was a big story about how G.W. Bush was getting serious about corporate fraud and was seeking increased funding for the Securities Exchange Commission. And there was one article, pure propaganda, about a meeting wherein G.W. met with some Iraqui opposition leaders and assured them that we were going to set up a democracy after we are through taking over their country. In light of the fact that everybody who has commented on the slim-to-non-existent prospects for our being able to set up a democracy in Iraq (including Bush administritation war-planners), I thought the article was bordering on rediculous -- but the Bush "party line" went unquestionned. In all fairness, I should point out that in section 7 there was a book review of a book that's theisis was that G.W. Bush and his pals were evil. Is this the liberal press that you oh so complain about?

 

By the way, I am still waiting for you to explain how the story about the flap at August country club was proof of bias. Even if it will take two or three sentences, I am sure you are up to the task of explaining how such and obvious example of bias should be interpreted.