|
That Stupid Opinion Piece posted:The highest-earning sections of American society rightfully take their place due to ability.  That, right there, is the most whiteprivilege.txt thing I have ever read. It is like the textbook definition of ignorant. Not in a malicious way, but in a deep, faulty-understanding-of-the-principles-your-argument-is-based-on way.
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2011 19:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 21:56 |
|
|
Man-Thing posted:
It's straight out of a Lakoff lecture
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2011 19:42
|
|
|
ThePeteEffect posted:If he couldn't vote in 2008 due to age, he's 20 at the oldest. "Oh, enlighten us with the true way the world works, you barely-post-pubescent oracle!" I meant more that he knows that's the way all worlds work. That's a pretty bold statement.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2011 19:44
|
|
|
This is a rough draft of my response. It isn't perfect and I'm not sure it's good, so I'll take critiques before I post it.quote:Obama, in his last contrived, dramatic address to the American voters, continued his presentation of a smoke-and-mirrors defense to further a vague, convoluted idea of "justice" to the quickly-shrinking minority of people who approve of his performance. quote:Obama repeated the phrase "a balanced approach" seven times in a speech that was just under 15 minutes long. It didn't present any new ideas or context to listeners-it just repeated the mysticisms that got him elected in the first place. quote:Harry Reid and John Boehner have now put two similar budget presentations onto the table for consideration. Both include no new taxes on the wealthy (something Obama is all for) and the raising of the debt ceiling by increasing spending cuts. They also include no major dilution of government programs, so they are seen as an acceptable compromise by both parties. Obama has failed to lead, but that's because the GOP's goal is to run the country into the ground as hard as possible while Obama's president that he'll lose his election. The Senate Minority Leader (Mitch McConnell) has outright stated that his only goal is to make Obama a 1-term President. The GOP only cares about power, not about you. Sorry. quote:Why have they dismissed these ideas? Because they are faulty. quote:Obama's quotation of Reagan was taken out of context. He painted a great Republican leader and a great president quote:as a support for his nigh-socialistic plans. quote:A sector of Americans "isn't doing [its] part." What sector, and why? They're not doing their part because instead of carrying their fair share of the tax burden, they're lobbying for lower taxes and refusing to pay the ones they currently owe. The top 10% of this country own more than 70% of this country, their wealth was earned on the backs of this country (the last time I checked, the Koch brothers weren't building highways), and they've benefitted more from this country than anyone else. Yet they refuse to contribute to this country. It seems awfully unpatriotic to me. After all, taxes aren't a punishment, they're the price we pay for the privilege of living in a civilized society. quote:The people who make the most money in this country are those who provide the best service to the most people. Whether that's Bill Gates and Microsoft, hedge fund managers, or Katy Perry, American consumers justify their lives' works by paying for them, over and over again. quote:A new tax on the wealthy is nothing more than a tax on ability and productivity. It's, in a way, a punishment for success. quote:There is no other way to slate this idea--the fact is, if you think the wealthy deserve to be taxed more on the basis of wealth, then you are saying their wealth is the fair game of the American taxpayer who raised them to the spotlight in the first place. A tax on productivity is like spanking a child who makes exceptional grades. quote:Standards are provided in the ideals of society and those who meet or exceed them are "taken down to a more reasonable level. They take more, so they should contribute more." quote:Obama continues to preach this absurd ideology because it appeals to a disturbingly large portion of Americans who have an odd sense of "justice." I won't classify or stereotype this section of voters--they are rich and poor alike. The former are filled with self-loathing and self-pity. "I should give more to society. I'm so lucky to have gotten all of this." The latter are filled with jealousy and more self-pity. quote:"This is a situation I was born in to. I deserve the spoils of productivity as much as the producers." Assuming this quote you made up to suit your argument is supposed to be the object of scorn, are you now saying that being born into a situation doesn't entitle you to the consequences of that situation? So we should all be born into a level playing field and Paris Hilton should have her trust fund stripped away? Who's the nigh-socialist now. quote:As much as this may sound insane to some people, it sounds just as reasonable to others. People who earn more should give more. And if they don't give more, society has a right, even a duty, to take it from them. Their profit and success is the property of the American people, and the American people (through their elected representatives) decide every so often exactly how much of their wealth belongs to them come that April. quote:Self-pity is the ugliest emotion in the universe. It takes the most incredible facet of humanity--the individual mind and will-and turns it on itself. Humans are not meant to hate or pity themselves, nor are they entitled to. I mean, really. You think Self-Pity is the ugliest of all emotions? Not hate, not greed? You know, the ones that have motivated wars, oppressive regimes, and genocide? * http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html ** http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/billionaires-buffett-gates-tax-us/story?id=12259003 *** http://www.nccp.org/topics/childpoverty.html[/quote]
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2011 20:27
|
|
|
Yeah, lots of idiots seem to think that wealth is created in a vacuum. My dad was arguing that the rich use the roads just like everybody else, so why should they pay more taxes? That way of thinking is missing the obvious point that corporations use public utilities to a much greater degree than the average taxpayer. Big rigs going up and down our highways put wear and tear on them more than the average person, don't they? Those companies make profits, pay dividends to shareholders, and the rich get richer while using the "same amount" of infrastructure? Bullfuckingshit.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2011 20:43
|
|
|
Sarion posted:I meant more that he knows that's the way all worlds work. That's a pretty bold statement. I didn't even see that. Yeah, that takes a special kind of delusion and privilege to claim. And a couple of suggestions for JerkyBunion's response: quote:Exactly. They benefit exponentially more from a national highway system than I do. Why shouldn't they pay more for it? It's only fair, right? Or maybe we could use your idea. From now on, everyone in your town must pay the exact same energy bill no matter what. Sucks that there's a factory in your town, because now instead of you paying $100 and them paying several thousand, you'll both be paying a couple thousand. Don't like it? Tough. WHY ARE YOU TRYING TO PUNISH THEM FOR BEING SUCCESSFUL?! You probably want to flesh out the road metaphor because he'd probably counter with bullshit like "but they don't use it as much". Something like "good transportation infrastructure benefits the rich because they can get workers from all over and can ship goods and [other benefits even though they're not directly using it]." quote:The top 10% have enjoyed the lowest taxes in decades and yet the economy stagnates. Under Eisenhower, the top tax rate was You don't have to use soft or conditional language when these things are indisputable fact.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2011 20:45
|
|
|
Thenipwax posted:Yeah, lots of idiots seem to think that wealth is created in a vacuum. My dad was arguing that the rich use the roads just like everybody else, so why should they pay more taxes? That way of thinking is missing the obvious point that corporations use public utilities to a much greater degree than the average taxpayer. Big rigs going up and down our highways put wear and tear on them more than the average person, don't they? Those companies make profits, pay dividends to shareholders, and the rich get richer while using the "same amount" of infrastructure? Bullfuckingshit. Don't think of it in terms of degrees of use, like that big rigs put more wear on the roads than passenger vehicles. This is true, but the real suggestion is that the rich benefit much more from the roads by having greater use for the roads. I benefit from the roads because I can: - use them for personal transportation. A factory owner benefits from the roads because he can: - use them for personal transportation - use them to transport raw materials to his factory - use them to transport employees to his factory - use them to transport his completed goods to his buyers Without the roads, I'd have to find another way to get around. Without the roads, the factory owner has to find another way to get around, has to deal with longer transportation times to receive the raw materials he needs for manufacturing, has to deal with longer transportation times to get his finished materials into the hands of his buyers, and has to hire employees from a smaller pool of potential employees.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2011 20:49
|
|
|
thefncrow posted:Don't think of it in terms of degrees of use, like that big rigs put more wear on the roads than passenger vehicles. This is true, but the real suggestion is that the rich benefit much more from the roads by having greater use for the roads.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2011 20:53
|
|
|
Baby's first Libertarian Monologue. He'll be John Galting in no time!
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2011 20:55
|
|
|
Thenipwax posted:Yeah, lots of idiots seem to think that wealth is created in a vacuum. My dad was arguing that the rich use the roads just like everybody else, so why should they pay more taxes? That way of thinking is missing the obvious point that corporations use public utilities to a much greater degree than the average taxpayer. Big rigs going up and down our highways put wear and tear on them more than the average person, don't they? Those companies make profits, pay dividends to shareholders, and the rich get richer while using the "same amount" of infrastructure? Bullfuckingshit. Not to mention reaping the rewards of a well educated workforce. But yeah, my parents should have paid for my education, even though the wealthy profit from it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2011 20:57
|
|
|
At some point I'm going to work this in as well:Taibbi blogged posted:We’re seriously talking about defaulting on our debt, and cutting Medicare and Social Security, so that Google can keep paying its current 2.4 percent effective tax rate and GE, a company that received a $140 billion bailout en route to worldwide 2010 profits of $14 billion, can not only keep paying no taxes at all , but receive a $3.2 billion tax credit from the federal government. And nobody appears to give a poo poo. What the hell is wrong with people? Have we all lost our minds? JerkyBunion fucked around with this message at 23:44 on Jul 28, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2011 20:58
|
|
|
It's like if it came from an opinion piece generator and the dial was set to 'libertarian'.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2011 21:00
|
|
|
His response:quote:Point one: Repetition is certainly a rhetorical technique, but I was more emphasizing that the balanced approach was not given.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2011 00:21
|
|
|
I had to stop when he called Trump "absurdly successful" to keep my brain from melting out of my ears.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2011 00:38
|
|
|
JerkyBunion posted:His response: List of things he doesn't understand: marginal utility, indirect benefits, natural monopolies, citations, basic logic, that Donald Trump bankrupted a casino, that the just-world fallacy is a fallacy. Oh, and basic humanity. If you want, you should c/p the quote from http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2337949 and then when he asks what Commie bastard said that, you can tell him it was the father of Laissez-Faire capitalism.  Or, just offer to buy him a plane ticket to Somalia.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2011 01:32
|
|
|
quote:Our country existed for almost a hundred years on no income tax, and that period was one of the most productive and innovative in our history. We also had no standing army, or at least it was very small. We had no major roadways or other infrastructure. People literally starved to death. 1780's to 1880's weren't exactly the best time to be alive... quote:Point Fifteen: Many of those emotions are born out of self-pity. And greed IS good. As is selfishness, as is individualism, as is a preoccupation on money and income. Without these ideals and others, society would never have advanced as far as it has. Ultimately this is the problem, and until he realizes the problem here he will deny anything you say to him. To conservatives we're all a bunch of individuals who happen to put up with one another. Liberals realize that we're a bunch of individuals who's actions are tied to one another. He sees the wealth of the successful business man as being completely the result of the business man's hard work, and only the business man's hard work. The fact that said wealth is completely dependent on others is lost on him. The fact that the business probably wouldn't even exist or operate the way it does without the government spending money on infrastructure or education or research or even food stamps is lost on him. In their mind the successful business man would have been just as successful all alone, perhaps even more so if the drat government just didn't bother to exist. Which I think is also part of why they see the government differently too. To Conservatives the government is this "other"; an entity that exists to tell them what to do and take the things they want. To liberals, it's the group. Government is what happens when we collectively make decisions; or in our case collectively choose a subset of individuals to collectively make decisions for us cause we're too busy with other poo poo. The point is, to conservatives the government is an outside entity, to liberals it's the will of the group. Those who have benefited the most from those decisions give back the most to take care of those who have benefited the least. We're not talking about making everyone even, we're talking about taking care of people's basic needs. At least, that's how it seems to me, maybe I'm making broad generalizations here.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2011 02:02
|
|
|
I responded by pointing out the multiple logical fallacies, inconsistencies, and downright wrong information in his point. He responded saying that clearly the debate had degenerated into personal attacks. I guess I win? edit: lol quote:and responding to legitimate claims with Latin phrases is both dismissive and unreasonable. JerkyBunion fucked around with this message at 02:46 on Jul 29, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2011 02:37
|
|
|
He suggested privatizing the roads. I've done that before as a joke to get people to see how "socialism" can be good. You won't brake him.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2011 02:46
|
|
|
JerkyBunion posted:His response: He cited Ayn Rand lol edit: unironically as well
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2011 02:51
|
|
|
JerkyBunion posted:I responded by pointing out the multiple logical fallacies, inconsistencies, and downright wrong information in his point. He responded saying that clearly the debate had degenerated into personal attacks. You win, for whatever that's worth. If you're not above parting shots, you can always call him on his personal attacks about poor people and liberals.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2011 02:52
|
|
|
ThePeteEffect posted:You win, for whatever that's worth. There is no reason to expect him to understand that. Is he saying Laissez-faire is unfair use of latin?
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2011 02:55
|
|
|
JerkyBunion posted:His response: Roads should be privatized. Holy poo poo I want to see how far this rabbit hole goes. Ask him if he thinks we should privatize water treatment facilities so that people who want free water should have to pay a fee. Or police departments. Or the fire department. Actually, show him this:  e: Looks like it's related to the Ford Pinto: http://180.151.36.4/quality/QulandRelTools%5CQuality%20Cost%20Analysis%20Benefits%20and%20Risks.htm Mo_Steel fucked around with this message at 03:34 on Jul 29, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2011 03:32
|
|
|
Revener posted:There is no reason to expect him to understand that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2011 05:01
|
|
|
Sarion posted:Ultimately this is the problem, and until he realizes the problem here he will deny anything you say to him. To conservatives we're all a bunch of individuals who happen to put up with one another. Liberals realize that we're a bunch of individuals who's actions are tied to one another. He sees the wealth of the successful business man as being completely the result of the business man's hard work, and only the business man's hard work. The fact that said wealth is completely dependent on others is lost on him. The fact that the business probably wouldn't even exist or operate the way it does without the government spending money on infrastructure or education or research or even food stamps is lost on him. In their mind the successful business man would have been just as successful all alone, perhaps even more so if the drat government just didn't bother to exist. Just wanted to say, that's one of the best summaries of that mindset I've seen. Thanks.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2011 06:11
|
|
|
Choadmaster posted:Just wanted to say, that's one of the best summaries of that mindset I've seen. Thanks. Agreed. A lot of people don't seem to understand that as humans, our interests mostly lie together instead of at odds. When more children go hungry, when we continue to wreak havoc on the environmental systems that support our lives, when the economy goes down the shitter, that's bad for ALL of us and for people who aren't even born yet. To quote Carl Sagan, quote:The choice is with us still, but the civilization now in jeopardy is all humanity. As the ancient myth makers knew, we are children equally of the earth and the sky. In our tenure on this planet we've accumulated dangerous evolutionary baggage — propensities for aggression and ritual, submission to leaders, hostility to outsiders — all of which puts our survival in some doubt. But we've also acquired compassion for others, love for our children and desire to learn from history and experience, and a great soaring passionate intelligence — the clear tools for our continued survival and prosperity. Which aspects of our nature will prevail is uncertain, particularly when our visions and prospects are bound to one small part of the small planet Earth. But up there in the immensity of the Cosmos, an inescapable perspective awaits us. There are not yet any obvious signs of extraterrestrial intelligence and this makes us wonder whether civilizations like ours always rush implacably, headlong, toward self-destruction. National boundaries are not evident when we view the Earth from space. Fanatical ethnic or religious or national chauvinisms are a little difficult to maintain when we see our planet as a fragile blue crescent fading to become an inconspicuous point of light against the bastion and citadel of the stars. Also an older quote, once considered a quite noble sentiment, that is all the more true now then when it was first spoken, given the fact that we are more highly interconnected and interdependant now. quote:We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately. I think one difficulty in getting through to someone like this is that there is a maturity/intellect/insight/call it whatever you want gap between the two positions. Both are rooted in fear. A basic premise that underlies them is that life is hard and our continued survival is still by no means certain. To make it more certain then, we adopt ideologies that we think will better our chances. I realize that if I make my life better for myself at the expense of others, I am playing a very sighted term and selfish game. I don't just want to have a good life, my ambitions lie higher. I want to do what I can to improve our lot as a species. I don't want the next generations to live lovely lives because I was irresponsible during mine. I consider it my responsibility given that my life and all the things that make it easier and more enjoyable were set up by others. Alone I'm nothing, but luckily I have over ten thousand years of innovators, philosophers, warriors, and all other stripes of people supporting me. This might be a good line of reasoning to use on a young libertarian. Try for emotional instead of logical consistency. Almost everyone understand the concept of personally paying it forward. If you can also get them to see that personal sacrifices for the greater good are the reason we're as somewhat-civilized as we are, the rest of the viewpoint will fall into place naturally. Every sane parent wants a better life for their children than what they had.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2011 16:43
|
|
|
JerkyBunion posted:At some point I'm going to work this in as well: Reading Taibbi makes me feel like we are already living in a Randian libertopia (or as close as we can get without everything going all Max Mad) and all the John Galts are just going through the motions bitching about taxes because that is all they know, when in reality they have been given pretty much everything they've ever asked for from society.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2011 22:07
|
|
|
Nathilus posted:I think one difficulty in getting through to someone like this is that there is a maturity/intellect/insight/call it whatever you want gap between the two positions. Learning that the people's brains aren't fully developed until we are in our twenties has helped me understand the behavior of college-age conservatives and libertarians. The frontal lobe especially, which importantly controls things like empathy, just isn't ready to process things fully at that author's age. Remembering that helps me out of a lot of stress. Maybe he'll grow out of it. Actually he'll probably just get a job as an investment banker or some such and continue blithely on his libertarian way.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2011 00:10
|
|
|
Kubrick posted:and all the John Galts are just going through the motions bitching about taxes because that is all they know, when in reality they have been given pretty much everything they've ever asked for from society. I have felt this way many times talking to some people...
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2011 08:21
|
|
|
JerkyBunion posted:At the same time, roads should be a privatized enterprise. It would increase tolls (but reduce taxes) and would increase the quality of America's roads due to the now-competitive nature of the market. How in the world would this work? If you don't like the toll, take a different road? How many roads does this guy plan to have run to his house?
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2011 08:49
|
|
|
QuickLime posted:How in the world would this work? If you don't like the toll, take a different road? How many roads does this guy plan to have run to his house? Didn't some goon write a great story about a guy in just such a libertarian dystopia who couldn't even make it to the end of the street.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2011 09:34
|
|
|
QuickLime posted:How in the world would this work? If you don't like the toll, take a different road? How many roads does this guy plan to have run to his house? All roads lead to his home.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2011 09:47
|
|
|
QuickLime posted:How in the world would this work? If you don't like the toll, take a different road? How many roads does this guy plan to have run to his house? Apparently enough that the different roads are competitive! While we're at it, we can have a privatized education system, so that families that are already struggling just don't send their kids to school at all. I'm sure when our literacy rates drop from 97% to 75% it will have no impact on our economy at all!
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2011 13:18
|
|
|
Serious question. Has anyone actually "gone Galt" and reported the results? I saw a bumper sticker on my way to work the other day that read 'Atlas is shrugging', and my initial reaction was "then move to a loving gulch or whatever and get the gently caress off the public road system". But that got me wondering if anyone had ever actually put their money where their mouth is an walked away from their privileged lives in the name of Objectivism?
tek79 fucked around with this message at 13:51 on Jul 31, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2011 13:48
|
|
|
QuickLime posted:How in the world would this work? If you don't like the toll, take a different road? How many roads does this guy plan to have run to his house? It'd be fun to explain to him how his "self-made" successful businessman was driven into debt and out of business before he could ever get it off the ground because he had to pay tolls on the roads he needed to distribute his product, while the businessman living in the world of publicly-paid for roads could freely move his products hither and yon to his buyers.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2011 13:50
|
|
|
tek79 posted:that got me wondering if anyone had ever actually put their money where their mouth is an walked away from their privileged lives in the name of Objectivism? You're adorable. The Unabomber.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2011 14:02
|
|
|
jojoinnit posted:You're adorable. He used the postal service.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2011 15:39
|
|
|
QuickLime posted:How in the world would this work? If you don't like the toll, take a different road? How many roads does this guy plan to have run to his house? If there are no competing roads then the market will, as always, provide a solution. Like private helicopters. In Mexico most of the highways were privatized (While keeping the old-as-gently caress national roads public), which means that, after they were built with public money, they were sold for peanuts to people with connections with the political party then in power. The results were the ones you would expect: the fees skyrocketed and lots of people stopped using them. Then the new owners started to siphon all the money away with "maintenance" work. Suddenly the highways required very expensive maintenance that only their very own construction companies could provide. With less people driving on them and huge maintenance bills (and a devaluing currency with many debts paid in dollars) the private highways went into bankruptcy in record time so the owners demanded a bailout, after all -they argued- highways are indispensable for the society at large and should not be allowed to fail, but they should still be owned privately because capitalism!. They got their money and went back to business as usual which means that they require bailouts from time to time. Currently, while the highway companies are always near bankruptcy and the roads themselves are lovely and expensive, their sister companies are rolling in money. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2011 16:40
|
|
|
Mooseontheloose posted:He used the postal service. Well, duh. You think UPS is going to pick up a package from a shack in the middle of nowhere? That wouldn't help their margins.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2011 17:24
|
|
|
I searched around and didn't see this posted, hope I am not wrong.quote:The 5 best sentences you will ever read I am so disappointed in my father for sending me this 
Papes fucked around with this message at 19:51 on Jul 31, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2011 18:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 21:56 |
|
|
apapersack posted:I searched around and didn't see this posted, hope I am not wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2011 18:54
|
|