But this, however, gives me hope: Ratings Crash for NBA, MLB After Protest-Filled Debuts
And condoms are a common sense precaution against the spread of AIDS and other STDs. Would you like the government mandating that you wear a condom every time you want to head down to pound town? Or would you like to assess that risk yourself and make your own decisions like an adult?
You fail to realize that the issue is the mandating of masks and not the masks themselves. The government, the CDC, the whoever has decided that Thou Shalt, and society as a whole has caved and complied out of fear and ignorance. It has cost people their jobs, their hobbies, their livelihoods. All for “the greater good”.
And your only argument - the premise of which you have simply repeated here instead of addressing my point - is that we should comply simply because “the cost” isn’t significant enough, at least to you. Your point only makes sense in a logical cost/benefit analysis when the value your place on freedom as a benefit is finite, which is shameful.
Those uncomfortable with going into the public should stay home, those willing to do so while wearing a mask should be allowed to do so as well, and those who find a mask useless shouldn’t have to wear one to appease the two former parties. But the social stigma that has been created now places the onus squarely on the third party above, and unfortunately now that stigma won’t subside until we are “allowed” to do so by that same They.
But this, however, gives me hope: Ratings Crash for NBA, MLB After Protest-Filled Debuts
I like this response a lot. One thing I would add, is imagine a government requiring condoms even when virologists KNOW they are nominally effective at best at preventing the spread of HIV.
And before the mouth-breathers pounce, it’s an analogy. Yes, condoms are extremely effective at preventing HIV transmission.
But they sure as hell don’t make condoms out of cloth.
I think there's a lot more shock value in the corruption in the US because it goes so contrary to the loudly stated ideals here, but the corruption in other places is at least as bad. Nothing happens in Italy without a bribe according to what I've heard and the UK has some serious scumbaggary in their Parliament.
Skin in the game and aptitude should be prerequisites for voting, but I still prefer the original idea of us voting for our state leadership and them voting for the federal leadership. I think it makes actual accountability more feasible on a bunch of levels and more importantly puts the focus and scrutiny at the state and local level. We can't, and shouldn't focus on that much politics as private citizens.
As it is now, I doubt most people know jack shit about their local candidates and barely anything more about their state candidates.
It reflects the general population's desire to get "free" shit at their neighbor's expense, the neglect of civic/community duty, and general lack of character, etc..
Certainly the fact that we pick government leaders the same way we pick prom king and queen attracts a certain kind of person and the exceptions tend to be weeded out by the process.
Didn't say we needed more people and I was pretty clear that the people in office, while generally scumbags, are not the sum of the problem. The majority of all people range from benign to shit...and most of the benign people will function perfectly well as useful idiots if they are in the midst of a crowd where the momentum is pushing them towards being shit.
That said. I'll take my people every time. They are better. That's why I choose them.
If we had more noble people outside of office their would be some actual worthwhile protests happening over the Covid tyranny. But they are few and scattered, so there's just a lot of angry people on social media instead.
You're absolutely right. Frederic Bastiat, a French legislator (among other things), wrote about this very thing and the socialists in his 1850 pamphlet The Law. The discouraging thing is he was fighting the same issues 170 years ago. On the positive side, we have his wisdom and rebuttals at our finger tips. Just a few nuggets:
...Men naturally rebel against the injustice of which they are victims. Thus, when plunder is organized by law for the profit of those who make the law, all the plundered classes try somehow to enter—by peaceful or revolutionary means—into the making of laws. According to their degree of enlightenment, these plundered classes may propose one of two entirely different purposes when they attempt to attain political power: Either they may wish to stop lawful plunder, or they may wish to share in it.
Woe to the nation when this latter purpose prevails among the mass victims of lawful plunder when they, in turn, seize the power to make laws!
Until that happens, the few practice lawful plunder upon the many, a common practice where the right to participate in the making of law is limited to a few persons. But then, participation in the making of law becomes universal. And then, men seek to balance their conflicting interests by universal plunder. [8] Instead of rooting out the injustices found in society, they make these injustices general. As soon as the plundered classes gain political power, they establish a system of reprisals against other classes. They do not abolish legal plunder. (This objective would demand more enlightenment than they possess.) Instead, they emulate their evil predecessors by participating in this legal plunder, even though it is against their own interests.
It is as if it were necessary, before a reign of justice appears, for everyone to suffer a cruel retribution—some for their evilness, and some for their lack of understanding...
...No society can exist unless the laws are respected to a certain degree. The safest way to make laws respected is to make them respectable. When law and morality contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law. These two evils are of [9] equal consequence, and it would be difficult for a person to choose between them...
...But how is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime.
Then abolish this law without delay, for it is not only an evil itself, but also it is a fertile source for further evils because it invites reprisals. If such a law—which may be an isolated case—is not abolished immediately, it will spread, multiply, and develop into a system.
I wouldn't hold up the labor movement like that. There was some really nasty stuff going on that prompted its start, but when labor unions gained power, they were corrupted shortly afterward. Organized crime got heavily involved, among other things.
I wonder about that one sometimes, but I think if it stayed they would've found some way to fuck us all out of voting by forcing us to live only as renters.
Define capitalism? Alright: the absence of government involvement in resource allocation.
21st century socialists are not advocating for the nationalization of small or medium enterprises. It is only the elephantine transnational corps that must be made accountable to Us if western civilization is to survive. The “allure of power” that you seem to think has seduced the formerly wholesome, virtuous zuckerberg and Bezos is a bigger problem than you apparently believe.
I am not surprised you were not born into money, but what point exactly are you making about your family’s café? If it didn’t open for the day, people didn’t eat? Like… they didn’t eat at a different restaurant, or cook something they bought at the store, they just didn’t eat?? Goodness, gracious. A damned good café, indeed!
My father was a professor of sociology in an era when that meant something very, very different than it does today. We were never hungry, if that’s what you’re asking. Were you just curious, or is there another reason you requested this information?
I would be very happy to reply to you if you can manage to say something coherent.
Heh. Glad someone finally snapped up that bit of bait. Everyone else was frustratingly disciplined, Hurling
Cuomo is not REALLY a theocrat... except to the extent that he believes an “invisible hand” distributes resources perfectly according to deservingness. Don’t delude yourself: there is NOTHING secular about this idea.
He absolutely is right-wing, however, this is beyond dispute. I thought this article did a decent job explaining why the DSA/antifa left despises him: Governor 1 Percent - Vox
(If you have read my posts you know that I’m not a part of that crowd, but in this case I share important concerns with them).
In all seriousness though, Hurling, you are my favorite character on these boards based on the few dozen pages of this thread that I’ve read. I like commitment to drawing historical parallels and your writing style. Carry on.
And I guess they are made accountable by The Government. Why is that whenever you people define a problem, it's always The Government that gets to fix it? You'd rather The Government run things than Bezos? The same government who employs the men with guns? I'll take Bezos, because he can't shoot me just yet.
No, you fool. WE didn't eat, along with lots of people in the neighborhood who had no where else to go and no time to cook before they had to go to work.I am not surprised you were not born into money, but what point exactly are you making about your family’s café? If it didn’t open for the day, people didn’t eat? Like… they didn’t eat at a different restaurant, or cook something they bought at the store, they just didn’t eat?? Goodness, gracious. A damned good café, indeed!
Most socialists come from either money or comfort, and very few from small cafes, so I was just wondering. You didn't disappoint!My father was a professor of sociology in an era when that meant something very, very different than it does today. We were never hungry, if that’s what you’re asking. Were you just curious, or is there another reason you requested this information?
Oh my god. I guess we need to define right-wing.Cuomo is not REALLY a theocrat... except to the extent that he believes an “invisible hand” distributes resources perfectly according to deservingness. Don’t delude yourself: there is NOTHING secular about this idea.
He absolutely is right-wing, however, this is beyond dispute.
Very interesting remarks!
Yes, Mark, they must be made accountable by the government. This is because the government should be controlled by democracy, which is one of the pillars of western civilization. At present, of course, the Bezos' control the government, as evidenced by the grossly unpopular 2017 corporate tax cuts that you have managed to persuade yourself were good for ordinary people. Since Pelosi fought as hard for these as Trump did, can I hear you go on the record to praise her heroic efforts to expand the federal budget deficit for the sake of giving money to transnational corporations?
If affluence leads to socialist views, then why do you think support for socialist policies increase in times of economic desperation?