Rule of Law? Or the Rule of Men.

[Woodsman]

Re: What are we discussing?

OK, I'll bite.

On the Internet we can say things to others that we wouldn't say if we were talking face-to-face. Anonymity lets us be as rude as we like. This is the standard for places like Zerohedge where people talk at each other instead of to each other. On the Internet, that person I'm arguing with isn't a human being, it's just an object I can vent my frustration on.

iTulip is different. The standard here is to speak to each other with the same politeness and courtesy we'd use if we were talking in a coffee shop. This place is one of the last bastions of civilized discourse, especially on the Internet.

Pardon me, but I've been here three years this month. I appreciate everything iTulip has to offer, but this last bastion thing is a conceit.

The problem as I understand it is not civility or lack thereof, but rather denial. We look away from our hardest problems, such as inequality, or pretend they don't exist, like anthropogenic climate change, and then wring our hands and say pity there’s nothing do be done about it. There are plenty of reasons for this but the biggest from my perspective is that identifying the problems as real would present us with a moral imperative to do actually something about them. It would raise the stakes to a level of criticality unseen since the 60s as it would reveal a people divided not by mere partisanship and ideology, but by significant material interests. This is why we can so easily dismiss the challenge laid down by Thomas Picketty or the latest set of climate reports.

The denial is structural and supported by policies and attitudes that conceal conflict. We have competing and sometimes irreconcilable interests. But rather than fight out their differences, we paper them over by various means; here by strict enforcement of a bland comity. I believe some things are worth a fight and worthy of indignant anger and meaningful conflict.

Politics in the end is a struggle for who gets what. The politics of denial only denies politics itself and leaves us in a state of permanent confusion in which anything can be believed but nothing can be known. We are more than willing to be held in this state because upon knowing the truth we're no longer able to evade our individual and personal responsibility to it.

To Hell with bland comity and milquetoast civility. Even if there's no chance and the struggle is hopeless, at least our progeny will know which side we were on.

[vt]

Re: What are we discussing?

"anthropogenic climate change"? The facts say otherwise:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestay...-long-cooling/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...cord-high.html

The irony is that one of the very best way to reduce carbon is not taxes but building nuclear plants. But the environmentalists effectively killed new
nuclear in the U.S.over 30 years ago. Now they want to tax even more and completely change lifestyles to control the population even more. Yes we
do need to reduce dependence on oil and gas but not like the alarmists call for.


Inequality? Progressives want not just higher taxes but redistribution of wealth, however created. They should go after illegally gained money, and
convince corporate boards to bring down way too high corporate pay packages. Instead they punish any accumulation of wealth as tainted.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/...-cheap/273940/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/maurapen...do-somethings/

http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2...tribution.html

What you don't see in leftist reasons for inequality are an examination of some of the societal changes that may have contributed to the problem.
For example the increase in single family homes, often headed by poorly educated women who are not qualified for higher income jobs. And the probability
that higher income young professionals tend to now marry other high income professionals. Two high incomes, less children equals some inequality but
is not sinister.

The left wants to solve complex problems with the simplistic approach of yet higher taxes and more control. Instead we should look to potential solutions
that address the issues, not espouse ideology.

EJ and this forum have a key goal of reducing FIRE and using TECI to rebuild the economy. Businesses and individuals are working hard each day to solve
problems, pursue opportunities, and help create good paying jobs. This is a process that must be encouraged and pushed by government.

We need to also cleanse the political system of the current corrupt parties. We must take almost all the ruinous spending out of the political system by public
funding of elections. We need a new independent fiscally responsible, socially moderate party; the New Majority Party of the center. Only then will workable
reforms and real progress be made.

[Polish_Silver]

Does the "O" deserve it?

I thought I wanted that for a long time when this current President took office. But he keeps calling me and every other American a f***ing idiot--to our faces! Over and over and over and over again. We're long past the point of showing respect. O'Reilly is a terrible person and a perfect fit for the President in an interview.

Ghent, could you give some examples of that?

I don't watch enough news to know one way or the other.

The one I can think of was about the "affordable care." During the run up, people were told the bill would save money, and that therefore no new taxes would be needed. When the nature of the bill was revealed,
mandatory subscription to private sector insurance, some people thought that qualified as a tax.
A journalist put Obama on the spot about this. Obama asserted that the mandatory insurance was not a tax. The journalist read the definition of "tax" from a dictionary, which was something like "money the government requires citizens to pay for a public good". Then Obama said something like "you have to resort to the dictionary definition because you know I'm right."

I thought the journalist asked the question fairly, and I thought worse of Obama for his answer.
Actually, I think it's worse than a tax. It sets a precedent for mandatory consumption of all manner of things. Contrary to the propaganda, there are many possible solutions to the adverse selection problem that don't involve mandatory payments to a private sector company. Wasn't El Duce who explained that Facism was the government and corporations working together? And why should most health care expenses be paid through insurance anyway? Insurance only makes sense for large, unpredictable costs.
70% or more of medical cost is chronic degenerative disease. Entirely predictable and comparison shopable.

[Ghent12]

Re: Does the "O" deserve it?

Ghent, could you give some examples of that?

I don't watch enough news to know one way or the other.

I was being facetious. If you catch the President in a lie, especially a very obvious lie, that is the President insulting our intelligence.

Actually, I think it's worse than a tax. It sets a precedent for mandatory consumption of all manner of things. Contrary to the propaganda, there are many possible solutions to the adverse selection problem that don't involve mandatory payments to a private sector company. Wasn't El Duce who explained that Facism was the government and corporations working together? And why should most health care expenses be paid through insurance anyway? Insurance only makes sense for large, unpredictable costs.
70% or more of medical cost is chronic degenerative disease. Entirely predictable and comparison shopable.

You are entirely right. But you can't go around using words like Fascist even if they are completely correct and proper--people tend to freak out. Every voter is a low-information voter in some respects, especially with regards to the history of political ideologies like socialism, so adding that nugget of truth about the current trend towards fascism only sets off reactionary alarm bells in people who think only the Nazis and maybe the Italians circa 1940 can be fascists. Adding descriptive words like "economic" before the "fascism" doesn't work either, because all the ignoramus hears is the latter.

[lektrode]

Re: What are we discussing?

Just wanted to make it known that Raz isn't alone on this. I have to say that after reading the thread, Woodsman, your sarcasm does seem to be compromising, rather than strengthening, this particular line of reasoning. It takes some of the valid points you bring up, and makes it less palatable to accept them as such.

That being said, I've enjoyed the information you've both posted, and have just learned a lot from both of you on this subject. Please don't think I'm trying to encourage the end of the conversation. ;-)

I know that Polish_Silver is a skilled debater, and doesn't really need my defense; I'm mostly bringing it up because there are many quieter readers who might be more convinced with a softer tone.

+2
even us NOT SO QUIET
but then, when those on the hard-over-and-STILL-OUT-THERE-on-the-'60s-treadmill start 'debating' stuff, its usually prefaced with INSULTING commentary directed at the opposing view

"anthropogenic climate change"? ....
.....
The irony is that one of the very best way to reduce carbon is not taxes but building nuclear plants.

But the environmentalists effectively killed new
nuclear in the U.S.over 30 years ago. Now they want to tax even more and completely change lifestyles to control the population even more. Yes we
do need to reduce dependence on oil and gas but not like the alarmists call for.


Inequality? ....

What you don't see in leftist reasons for inequality are an examination of some of the societal changes that may have contributed to the problem......
.....
The left wants to solve complex problems with the simplistic approach of yet higher taxes and more control.

Instead we should look to potential solutions that address the issues, not espouse ideology.

.....

+1
but then - looking for solutions to the problems that the hard-over-on-the-left ideologues HAVE CREATED isnt their aim nor goal - what they want is their fingers in the .gov created great-society/welfare-industrial complex, along with all the FAT benes/pensions that go along with its CONTROL

[Mn_Mark]

Re: What are we discussing?

To Hell with bland comity and milquetoast civility. Even if there's no chance and the struggle is hopeless, at least our progeny will know which side we were on.

What a brave truth-teller you are, attacking southerners like the folks who live in South Carolina. Digging through their history to come up with a list of things that allow you to vent your anti-redneck bigotry with your chest stuck out, congratulating yourself on what a brave, equality-lovin', global-warming-hatin' fellow you are. (Imagine the nerve of them, being the last to honor MLK Jr! What a eternal stain on their reputation! You remind me of those people applauding Stalin in the soviet legislature - everyone afraid to be the first to stop applauding, so everyone just kept on applauding.)

There is no easier target in this country than southern people. They are the only group left that it's OK to hate. (One example that comes to mind: the really vicious way the Cletus Spuckler character is lampooned on The Simpsons. No other identity group is savaged like that.)

If you had any balls, you'd list off all the stupidities and atrocities committed by Muslims or by blacks. I bet you could come up with a pretty long list. And that would take some real bravery.



And let me predict what you will do next, based on what you've done in nearly every thread I've seen you comment on here: you'll get butthurt and talk about how if your truth-telling and folksy, aw-shucks perspective isn't welcome, why, you'll just mosey on somewhere else where you ARE appreciated. And then you'll be back two days later with the same progressive boilerplate (while claiming that you're not progressive).

[Woodsman]

Re: What are we discussing?

What a brave truth-teller you are, attacking southerners like the folks who live in South Carolina. Digging through their history to come up with a list of things that allow you to vent your anti-redneck bigotry with your chest stuck out, congratulating yourself on what a brave, equality-lovin', global-warming-hatin' fellow you are. (Imagine the nerve of them, being the last to honor MLK Jr! What a eternal stain on their reputation! You remind me of those people applauding Stalin in the soviet legislature - everyone afraid to be the first to stop applauding, so everyone just kept on applauding.)

There is no easier target in this country than southern people. They are the only group left that it's OK to hate. (One example that comes to mind: the really vicious way the Cletus Spuckler character is lampooned on The Simpsons. No other identity group is savaged like that.)

If you had any balls, you'd list off all the stupidities and atrocities committed by Muslims or by blacks. I bet you could come up with a pretty long list. And that would take some real bravery.

And let me predict what you will do next, based on what you've done in nearly every thread I've seen you comment on here: you'll get butthurt and talk about how if your truth-telling and folksy, aw-shucks perspective isn't welcome, why, you'll just mosey on somewhere else where you ARE appreciated. And then you'll be back two days later with the same progressive boilerplate (while claiming that you're not progressive).

Now that's the way to do it, folks! Nice work, MN. Thanks for playing.

[Woodsman]

Re: What are we discussing?

That's the spirit! But maybe a few more colors and a picture of a hippy or drag queen, next time. A+ for effort.

[shiny!]

Re: What are we discussing?

To Hell with bland comity and milquetoast civility. Even if there's no chance and the struggle is hopeless, at least our progeny will know which side we were on.

I have no problem with you taking this stand, but I do have a problem with you taking it here. You're forgetting that when you're a guest in someone's home you follow their rules. If your host says "don't smoke and don't put your feet on the table," then whether or not you agree with him you don't smoke and you don't put your feet on the table. If your host says "be polite in my house," then you need to be polite in his house. Because it's his house, not yours.

Our host iTulip has a rule: Be polite and civil. They want iTulip discussions to follow the etiquette of being as polite as if you're conversing face to face in a coffee shop.

You, OTOH, want to defend your right to fight like you're on "the internet," slinging insults behind the cloak of anonymity. You and iTulip have different agendas that are as unmixy as oil and water.

EJ has been considering closing the public forums because they're tired of moderating all the partisan snark. If you want to participate here, then I strongly suggest you follow iTulip's rule whether you agree with it or not. Otherwise you and a few other people could kill this forum for the rest of us.

[Woodsman]

Re: What are we discussing?

When Brutus stabbed Caesar, do you think he had any notion that he would be next on the chopping block?

But we're not really enforcing comity, are we, with these not so veiled threats of expulsion? We're enforcing orthodoxy. The biggest rule of any club is not "be polite" but rather "don't violate the ruling paradigm."

Other than the "I can slow down" quip - a casual and inconsequential line out of hundreds that you seemed to have zero'ed in on - I'm quite certain that I didn't do anything you accuse me of doing. Meanwhile I'm called a liar and a eunuch (having "no balls" as it were). I'm called a Stalinist and whatever else passes as an acceptable curse from our friends on the right side.

I've got to ask, if you are so concerned about the closure of the public forums, why continue to interject yourself? I was prepared to let the thread die a natural death until you and others "bit." Recall I was content to leave the disagreement as it was. I said something to the effect that since we aren't going to change minds, let's leave it at that. But then the Shame Patrol rolled up, tisk tisking their way in, followed quickly by the Confederate Honor Constabulary. Now the Comity Police arrives, full of charges and accusations and threats.

Really, I'm not trying to get myself booted. You are hard at work, I can see that, but I'd like to stay around a while. I guess my mistake was that I really believed there was space here for diversity. I honestly thought that all that stuff about a community of ideas was the real deal. That was dumb me, no?

[Verrocchio]

Re: What are we discussing?

When Brutus stabbed Caesar, do you think he had any notion that he would be next on the chopping block?

But we're not really enforcing comity, are we, with these not so veiled threats of expulsion? We're enforcing orthodoxy. The biggest rule of any club is not "be polite" but rather "don't violate the ruling paradigm."

Other than the "I can slow down" quip - a casual and inconsequential line out of hundreds that you seemed to have zero'ed in on - I'm quite certain that I didn't do anything you accuse me of doing. Meanwhile I'm called a liar and a eunuch (having "no balls" as it were). I'm called a Stalinist and whatever else passes as an acceptable curse from our friends on the right side.

I've got to ask, if you are so concerned about the closure of the public forums, why continue to interject yourself? I was prepared to let the thread die a natural death until you and others "bit." Recall I was content to leave the disagreement as it was. I said something to the effect that since we aren't going to change minds, let's leave it at that. But then the Shame Patrol rolled up, tisk tisking their way in, followed quickly by the Confederate Honor Constabulary. Now the Comity Police arrives, full of charges and accusations and threats.

Really, I'm not trying to get myself booted. You are hard at work, I can see that, but I'd like to stay around a while. I guess my mistake was that I really believed there was space here for diversity. I honestly thought that all that stuff about a community of ideas was the real deal. That was dumb me, no?

Woodsman, I've learned much from your posts, and from Polish Silver's, too, for that matter; and I hope to read many more from both of you in the years ahead. Your initial reaction to let the thread die a natural death was spot on.

[shiny!]

Re: What are we discussing?

Reading over my last post, Woodsman, I realize my "suggestion" came off sounding high-handed. For that I apologize.

It isn't right when people insult you, either; I wasn't singling you out exclusively.

I've said my piece and probably more than was wise. Thank you for listening.

[Roughneck]

Re: Rule of Law? Or the Rule of Men.

There are two elements of communication.

1. Content (the information)
2. Process (how the information is conveyed)

Or "spin" in other words.
IMHO Obama has demeaned the office by appearing on late night TV,comedy shows. In regards to the IRS scandal exactly what has Eric Holder chose to do in regards to enforcement of law. He has to be the most inept political tool to inhabit the office.

[lektrode]

Re: Rule of Law? Or the Rule of Men.

Or "spin" in other words.
IMHO Obama has demeaned the office by appearing on late night TV,comedy shows. In regards to the IRS scandal exactly what has Eric Holder chose to do in regards to enforcement of law. He has to be the most inept political tool to inhabit the office.

+1
a tool, absolutely - but dunno about 'inept' - would say he has been VERY EFFECTIVE - just NOT for the benefit of WE, the Rest of The People

THE O'man tho? (the one on the 'non-news' network)
his show is the antithesis of spin - a NO BS zone - kinda like - or rather exactly like Mr J's
(and hoping he'll forgive me for the comparison ;)

[lektrode]

Re: What are we discussing?

..... but I'd like to stay around a while. I guess my mistake was that I really believed there was space here for diversity. I honestly thought that all that stuff about a community of ideas was the real deal. That was dumb me, no?

NO it wasnt - and YES there is 'space here' for especially YOUR POV.

but howzabout offering a POV that ISNT a history lesson on the failings of US society from the 1800's up thru the 1960's ?

i mean really, woody - we are all familiar with the stuff that was brought here - mostly by the crown loyalists and their profiteers back in the 1800's - and NOBODY ALIVE OR BORN SINCE THE 1950'S HAD A GD THING TO DO WITH ANY OF IT - yet we ALL are STILL PAYING FOR IT - and gawd knows how familiar we are with everything thats happened since 'the good ole days' of the 1950's - but wow, du`ude - WHEN will we ever get over it?