posted
I didn't say the things Dan thinks I said though, that would require a certain degree of nuance though.
But anyways:
quote: I'm not a libertarian.
If the glove fits you should wear it.
quote: And Hayek was a bit of a hack who capitulated way too much to socialism.
Red Flag spotted (irony).
The idea, the funny little idea, that an experts theories and views on a complex subject like economics can be instinctively rejected outright by a lay person called a "hack" because he "capitulated" to some unseen "Other" force, a force that for some reason "MUST" be fought and destroyed because his theory took a few trivial steps in that direction through his exhaustive research is FLIRTING WITH COMMUNISM because entirely of ideological concerns is just awe inspiring in its lack of self awareness.
And "I'm" apparently "entrenched" and unconvinced in my views here. (Despite advocating the mainstream economically Liberal view)
[ August 26, 2013, 06:45 PM: Message edited by: Elison R. Salazar ]
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I hadn't read it yet, but I'm not at all surprised to see that you did, actually, and there's not any 'nuance' to it, 'Elison'. I'd ask you to stop being so rude and hostile to someone you disagree with, but your imperviousness to that is pretty well known.
What I most liked was your insistence Dan use the name you prefer, followed by telling him what a wicked fool he is at length.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I hadn't read it yet, but I'm not at all surprised to see that you did, actually, and there's not any 'nuance' to it, 'Elison'. I'd ask you to stop being so rude and hostile to someone you disagree with, but your imperviousness to that is pretty well known.
What I most liked was your insistence Dan use the name you prefer, followed by telling him what a wicked fool he is at length.
If your thinking of the post on the previous page I most certainly did not. He can choose to place himself in that label or he may not, but I certainly did not put him there, but rather I was elaborating my argument to Gaal as to why trickle down economics is flawed.
Then Dan interjected calling me 'evil' for advocating Keynes and not once elaborating why that is so (in this thread), he's shit posting and running and so there's zero reason why I should pretend to be kind to those who hold his positions when the lives of millions are every day worsened by the policies supported by Anarcho-Capitalists and other Looters of American wealth.
But I never once said "Dan is a useful idiot and evil" in fact I never once even indirectly alluded to him being evil, but to the Koch Brothers and other of the super rich looter class.
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
I'm something of a classical liberal. Lots in common with libertarians, especially from where you're sitting. But libertarians are radicals, they typically want to smash the state and start over. I'm in favor of incremental improvement. Libertarians are also isolationists. I'm not. They also tend towards Luddism a bit. Which is basically the worst thing ever. They also think things are really bad in America right now. I don't.
Etc. Both libertarians and I broadly like capitalism and freedom, though. And since you hate those things and your entire ideology is based around embracing their destruction, I end up looking a lot like a libertarian. That's your problem, not mine.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay Blayne. Keynes and Krugman are evil. And anyone who advocates a highly interventionist economic policy is a destructive idiot. You can put yourself in relevant categories, or not, as you wish.
posted
Hrrrm, I just checked, the timeline of posts might be skewed since I apparently double posted and Dan responded inbetween the double posts. Weird.
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
I'm something of a classical liberal. Lots in common with libertarians, especially from where you're sitting. But libertarians are radicals, they typically want to smash the state and start over. I'm in favor of incremental improvement. Libertarians are also isolationists. I'm not. They also tend towards Luddism a bit. Which is basically the worst thing ever. They also think things are really bad in America right now. I don't.
Etc. Both libertarians and I broadly like capitalism and freedom, though. And since you hate those things and your entire ideology is based around embracing their destruction, I end up looking a lot like a libertarian. That's your problem, not mine.
I think things are absolutely terrible in America.
And I want to smash the system and start over.
.....am I a Libertarian?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Okay Blayne. Keynes and Krugman are evil. And anyone who advocates a highly interventionist economic policy is a destructive idiot. You can put yourself in relevant categories, or not, as you wish.
Better?
Aha, but you have fallen into my cleverly laid trap for I am NEITHER you see, bhuwahahahaha. *cough*, allergies sorry.
I'm a communist our goal is your destruction and Keynes actually gets in our way by bribing the lower class into the complacency with the status quo! Keynes is your shield against the Communist Party's efforts. I fully agree and accept the notion that I am to a degree by some moral and ethical standard "Evil" with a capital E, because it is necessary that in order to establish a one party Workers State that we must liquidate class enemies, possibly millions.
In fact libertarians and anarcho-capitalists like yourself, especially with the mind boggling contradiction of not being imperialists (and thus having no outlet for the constant exponential growth and resource exploitation capitalism needs to sustain itself) are our greatest allies because with you, with no welfare state, with no safety-net, with no security of life nor person there is absolutely nothing left for the Proletariat to lose but in fact their chains to corporate enslavement.
Revolution becomes the inevitable result when enough becomes enough for the working poor.
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Who would be so cruel as to name their child an incorrect misspelling of the pokemon gym teacher of cindabar island Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I want to write a movie or a T.V. comedy where Dan and Elison are roommates forced to live in an apartment together by circumstances outside of their control, in a way which is openly ironic given their ideologies. Dan is injured and put out of the workforce and into medical bankruptcy through a workplace injury that his insurers write off via "extant cause" wigglery; Elison is forcibly reassigned by a brutal autocratic state department that bulldozes his home to put up an apparatchik mansion and deploys him to a wholly inappropriate living condition, and brooks no appeal. Elison will stitch together maoist propaganda and double-standard nationalist apologia at Dan, relentlessly culturally fetishize countries which are ostensibly models of the Coming Revolution and Strong Nationalism, and engage in orientalist pedestaling. Dan will constantly awkwardly explain why he supports and will go out of his way to defend a movement which is effectively and ubiquitously the kind of regressive luddite intolerant science-illiterate christian populism that generally Dan insists he is not at all into, and try to what shores up the dissonance, inbetween crawling through the latest lecture about how if China does something, that means China is allowed to do it.
The metacommentary of the show will be that Dan and Elison argue with each other relentlessly, each assuring the other that it is the influence of the other's ideology in society (or their latest episodic foible) which is preventing them from having better upwards economic mobility. This is all to the gleeful joy of their kleptocratic landlord who is letting them use their respective ideologies to disempower themselves from having any real economic self-agency in the face of his established and landed economic hegemony. "If only the two of them realized that the common thread between their socioeconomic beliefs is that it ultimately makes them both patsies that act in my interests and against theirs!" he chortles.
tl;dr: what even is this thread
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
In case people missed it, I was making a not so subtle point that Dan believing an actual Communist regime that would without hesitation confiscate his property and execute him in a back alley after an elaborate show trial is just as evil as a democratically elected gov't raising his taxes 5% to pay for universal healthcare and thorough back to work programs to fix a sluggish economy is.... Words fail me.
Though I should never underestimate Poe's Law given some of my earlier posting history.
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
I'm something of a classical liberal. Lots in common with libertarians, especially from where you're sitting. But libertarians are radicals, they typically want to smash the state and start over. I'm in favor of incremental improvement. Libertarians are also isolationists. I'm not. They also tend towards Luddism a bit. Which is basically the worst thing ever. They also think things are really bad in America right now. I don't.
Etc. Both libertarians and I broadly like capitalism and freedom, though. And since you hate those things and your entire ideology is based around embracing their destruction, I end up looking a lot like a libertarian. That's your problem, not mine.
I think things are absolutely terrible in America.
And I want to smash the system and start over.
.....am I a Libertarian?
... Are you?
I wasn't describing all of the traits of libertarians. I was just describing the beliefs libertarians have that I strongly disagree with. I think you knew that, though. Smartass.
There are lots of other beliefs that libertarians and I have in common, but the ones I listed are important enough to me that I don't think it makes sense to call me a libertarian, not really. It's convenient as a broad descriptor that is easily recognized, but some of the typical assumptions don't apply.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by jebus202: I'd actually watch the **** out of that. Will you write up a pilot script?
Episode 1: "Wal-Marx" — Elison literally stages a populist uprising in the Wal-Mart across the street. It works out pretty well initially because the employees aren't paid even remotely well enough to hold back revolutionaries armed with 440 stainless steel katanas purchased from a mall outlet store. Socialized redistribution of goods goes well for a time, but eventually hoarding and distribution problems caused by a generally nonfunctional centralized economic structure causes a complete socioeconomic crisis, or rather, people start getting really hungry after 2pm and the system has failed to equitably distribute can openers to the produce department laborers. Eventually, mirroring the path of communism in world history, the intended system becomes progressively more dysfunctional and contradictory, where the equality of the people without capitalism requires Elison to attempt to maintain equality via more and more progressively autocratic central authority that defeats the intent in the first place. Eventually, the system descends to where he is ousted in a bloody (someone hit their head on a corner) and violent coup that sees New Walmartia descending into brutal totalitarianism. Elison and a small diaspora settle for protected asylum in the parking lot of CostCo. Dan remains trapped in the Walmart, where he had gone to simply shop for groceries but ended up having his passport confiscated and was forcefully reassigned to the aluminum mines of the soda aisle.
Episode 2: "Vini, Vidi, Veritas" — James O'Keefe shows up at the house and begins wiretapping it and filling it full of hidden cameras to engage in some "hard hitting" journalism that "challenges the status quo," also redoing Dan's room with the condoms, lube, and dildos that James had originally used on his sex boat.. As a reader and supporter of biggovernment, Dan is nervously supportive of the plan as presented to him by O'Keefe. But what will Dan do when he discovers that O'Keefe's actual plan is to lure in and ritually sacrifice Shirley Sherrod in the hopes of constructing a new golem-like body that he can implant Breitbart's phylctery into? Things get even more awkward when it turns out that Sherrod is actually the woman that connected with Salazar on OKCupid the night before, and the planetary zenith that O'Keefe requires for the summoning corresponds with their date. Whuuuuh-oh!
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't actually read biggovernment. Except on the occasions when I'm in a mood where I am actually reading Instapundit and he links to it. But I haven't even had much time for that in quite a while.
Either way, though... yeah, I laughed pretty hard at both of those. Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
PS. Governor Perry is in MO today to personally ask businesses to move to Texas. He was invited to speak by the State Chamber of Commerce, who's stated only purpose of existence is to support and protect Missouri Businesses. The Missouri Governor, and several community Chamber of Commerces are confused how arranging for an out of state salesman to convince companies to move out of state can somehow promote business in the state.
The truth seems to be that they want to use this visit, and any statistics they can muster, to show that the Democratic Governor's veto of a lowering of income taxes is a job killer.
It seems to boil down to this: The "Job Creator" is trying to bully the Governor of Missouri by saying, "Lower my tax bill by 5% or I'll take away the jobs, health care and futures of thousands of my loyal workers. Sure they didn't do anything wrong, and they care about the business we've built, they work hard and make the products and do the services that create my income, but hey--I want that 5% of my tax bill. I don't care about the 100% of their income."
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
I'm something of a classical liberal. Lots in common with libertarians, especially from where you're sitting. But libertarians are radicals, they typically want to smash the state and start over. I'm in favor of incremental improvement. Libertarians are also isolationists. I'm not. They also tend towards Luddism a bit. Which is basically the worst thing ever. They also think things are really bad in America right now. I don't.
Etc. Both libertarians and I broadly like capitalism and freedom, though. And since you hate those things and your entire ideology is based around embracing their destruction, I end up looking a lot like a libertarian. That's your problem, not mine.
I think things are absolutely terrible in America.
And I want to smash the system and start over.
.....am I a Libertarian?
... Are you?
I wasn't describing all of the traits of libertarians. I was just describing the beliefs libertarians have that I strongly disagree with. I think you knew that, though. Smartass.
There are lots of other beliefs that libertarians and I have in common, but the ones I listed are important enough to me that I don't think it makes sense to call me a libertarian, not really. It's convenient as a broad descriptor that is easily recognized, but some of the typical assumptions don't apply.
Just teasing
But in all honesty, though I know there's no reason why two opposing groups can't hold the same idea, I was a bit surprised to see those things ascribed to libertarians when I consider myself far left of Bernie Sanders and I agree with both of those wholeheartedly, as I think many liberals do.
Liberals and libertarians could probably get together on quite a few things, but they start to lose me around social justice problems.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: PS. Governor Perry is in MO today to personally ask businesses to move to Texas. He was invited to speak by the State Chamber of Commerce, who's stated only purpose of existence is to support and protect Missouri Businesses. The Missouri Governor, and several community Chamber of Commerces are confused how arranging for an out of state salesman to convince companies to move out of state can somehow promote business in the state.
The truth seems to be that they want to use this visit, and any statistics they can muster, to show that the Democratic Governor's veto of a lowering of income taxes is a job killer.
It seems to boil down to this: The "Job Creator" is trying to bully the Governor of Missouri by saying, "Lower my tax bill by 5% or I'll take away the jobs, health care and futures of thousands of my loyal workers. Sure they didn't do anything wrong, and they care about the business we've built, they work hard and make the products and do the services that create my income, but hey--I want that 5% of my tax bill. I don't care about the 100% of their income."
And we all know they would leave anyways even if taxes were lowered 5%, because next they'll want 10%.
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
(Despite advocating the mainstream economically Liberal view)![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
