This site is supported by the advertisements on it, please disable your AdBlocker so we can continue to provide you with the quality content you expect.

Welcome to Our Community

Wanting to join the rest of our members? Feel free to sign up today.

Fuck, man. Greece.

Discussion in 'Bar' started by Genius Gone Insane, Jun 17, 2013.

  1. John_C

    John_C formerly Skeksis268

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2008
    Messages:
    3,457
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    Coventry, UK
    [devils advocate]
    State provision and strict regulation *enable* basic freedoms for those with less power/money:

    The freedom to leave your abusive partner who forced you out of work because you know you'll able to survive ok until you find a new job.

    The freedom of a better chance of a long, healthy life without risk of crippling medical debt, no matter your wealth.

    The freedom to take a risk on starting a new business because failure won't result in homelessness.

    The freedom to not have to work 15 hour days on pain of being fired.

    The freedom to get a job knowing that basic health and safety precautions are enforced.

    etc. etc.
    [/devils advocate]

    I see the ideas behind what you're saying, it's better than the usual:
    personalFreedom = totalFreedom - stateControl;
    bullshit that the dumbest of neo-liberal brigade trot out all the time. And the anarchists too.
    What you said in this post isn't Randian, but I still maintain the previous rejection of the notion of "common good" is. Freedom is for the common good, as is the rule of law. However, you were referring specifically to collectivist economics so I won't press the point.
     
  2. egan.

    egan. daylightdies.com

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2002
    Messages:
    5,441
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    NorCal
    Beyond the rhetoric can you actually provide a nation and period of time that proves your point? On a historical basis not a single person you sited lived in a time or place where such a government existed. Out of the four only one of them wasn't heavily invested in slavery.
    This isn't a response to you, but I think it's weird that any discussion of this stuff seems to compare a hypothetical libertarian utopia to soviet communism. A theory in practice which perverted the original ideas to a level that included genocide.
     
  3. drew_drummer

    drew_drummer Dancefap

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2008
    Messages:
    6,486
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    London, UK
    Those are not basic freedoms. Those are rights, and they are "granted" quite graciously by the State (sarcasm). Even that isn't even true - people fought for them and won them; but of course they don't apply to everyone evenly. Our government regularly fucks up the application of said basic rights and freedoms.

    Here in the UK shelters for abuse are primarily aimed at women, even though men make up approximately 43% of domestic violence victims. You'll never find that being said on any of the major shelters websites or promo information though, because they're all about promoting the message that men are perpetrators and women are victims, contrary to everything that Erin Pizzey says (the woman who opened the first shelters in Chiswick back in the 60's) and contrary to our official stats. There are something like 2500 shelters that cater to women and their children (boys under 12; any older and they cannot enter) but only something like 6 across the entire UK for men. They don't get funding and the big ones see them as competition, so they do nothing to promote the message that domestic violence is reciprocal and not specific to any gender.

    A large proportion of this funding is government and taxpayer sourced. Yet it isn't distributed evenly.

    Actually it is the freedom to choose between an overworked NHS, and paying for your own medical treatment. I wouldn't judge someone for going their own way, particularly when we are paying for non-life threatening treatments such as boob jobs and plastic surgery.

    The funding for the NHS again comes largely from taxpayers, and that too is not spent wisely or evenly.

    But failure can and DOES result in homelessness all the time; and again men bear the vast brunt of this. But our government does very little to help with our homelessness problem, going as far to threaten families with legal action when they try to get themselves out of the hole they're in.

    Have you seen what happened recently in the investment banking sector? An intern collapsed and died after working stupid hours, and that culture has been like that literally for decades. When I worked selling t-shirts at Download and other festivals during my student days, every single one of the days I worked was a 15 hour day. So where is that freedom again?

    Certainly admirable. It's a shame that it took women entering the workforce en-mass in order for the regulations and health and safety to be tightened up and enforced. For the few thousand years before that, men and boys were dying quite regularly on the job building castles, forts, and oh yeah... dying in wars all around the world.

    Essentially; I think at the moment government exists just to further the careers of a bunch of Etonians who don't really give a good fuck about the common man. Labour are just as bad, except they're less blatant about it and thus more dishonest in my eyes.

    Anytime communism has been applied, it has resulted in oppression, famine, and widespread discontent. I'd love to see an example on a large scale where this isn't true. Really I would.
     
  4. TheWinterSnow

    TheWinterSnow Den Mørke Natt

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2008
    Messages:
    3,090
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Sacramento, CA
    I think more of what I should have said was that Individual Rights are more important than Collective Rights. If you are so worried about the collective community, you allow it to remain healthy through individual freedom, not a majority or even elite few imposing its will on others.

    That question does come up frequent in conversation like this. The truth is that it has never been that was in the purest sense, but there are points in history were a society/nation was heading that way and there are statistics to show the effects on economies and civil rights.

    Like I mentioned in a previous post our founding fathers, most of them were against slavery even though they had slaves themselves. The problem was at the time, their source of income was from farming and at the time there was no way to have a farm without slaves, you couldn't hire people to do that type of work due to the culture. Thomas Jefferson many times tried adding legislation banning slavery and at times tried putting it in the constitution, but at the time state officials had threatened to wage war for their independence if slavery was made illegal. Constantly trying to compromise he finally came to a legislative ban that women over the age of 23 had to be free, and men over the age of 28 had to be freed and were freed when they reached of age and then after 20 years it would be illegal. He was again threatened and lost that battle as well. Soon after though, states began adopting his legislation at state level, but was circumvented when slave holders at the time would sell their slaves near of age out of state. It would take a cultural change where state after state would begin to find slavery as immoral. By the time that finally happened when enough people were on the side to protest and invalidate that law, the civil war broke out.

    At the time the US both politically and socially was on a heading for classical liberalism. Individual freedoms at the time were slowly becoming more abundant, just like the founders wanted it to be, it required social change to get there. From the 1860s to the 1880s it all went down hill, the birth of the modern day liberal was born and won the mentality of the people. During the time after the civil war after slavery was banned, the culture and politicians, the movement was working on women rights, increased voting rights, progression of the standard of living. From 1776 to the 1870s, while the rich had gotten richer, the poor had also seen much greater increases in wages and rights, standard of living had slowly increase, economic growth was at a rate that had never been seen even today. When the now known progressive or modern liberal movement won, it polarized the nation, changed the definition of nationalism, created a collectivist mentality. The problem is that it wasn't just this county, but the world. The collective mentality created the tension that would result in WWI and WWII, would create the rise of fascism and communism and erect the nanny state this country as well as the EU would soon adopt.

    Yes a true classical liberal world hasn't existed, but every time in history it has, such as Egypt after being liberated from Persian rule until the death of Cleopatra, the Renaissance, US Independence mostly the mid 19th century and the Industrial Revolution, these times in history proved that when societies were moving in that direction that everyone, especially the poor, were better off than before and economic growths were always at all time highs. Today those times look barbaric only because we still have had economic growth, but the economic growth of those days made our world in the 90's to early 2000s look like child's play.

    But we have something worse happening. While our standard of living looks much better than that of years past, the movement that caused the wars, caused a slow and eventual crash in the economy has gone rogue, corrupt. No one can deny that especially with all that is in the news, whistle blowers like Manning and Snowden, Assange, the Drone strikes in the Middle East, TSA, NSA, gun regulations, protest/free speech regulations, I can go on and on...we live in a nanny state were almost everything we do in day to day life is deemed illegal or suspicious of terrorist activities, everything we do is wrong and must be taxed for it. It is absolutely ridiculous the power governments have these days when they were deemed by many intellectuals before as nothing more than a guardian of civil liberties and natural law.
     
  5. Genius Gone Insane

    Genius Gone Insane http://www.¯\(°_o)/¯.com

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2003
    Messages:
    5,718
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Wintersnow - actually this is pretty interesting what you are writing here. But there is a flaw in that last paragraph that you need to address: you talk about the tremendous power of our governments. However, you fail to mention that our goverments (the USA at least) are driven entirely by corporations. So actually the government itself has little power.

    And remember: you can do it your own way...IF IT'S DONE JUST HOW I SAY
     
  6. TheWinterSnow

    TheWinterSnow Den Mørke Natt

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2008
    Messages:
    3,090
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Sacramento, CA
    That's not entirely true. I said on the first page as well as John that corporations are amoral in nature, their only concern is turning out revenue, or simple, don't fall into the red. Corporation in that aspect only control government where economics are concerned. That is still not completely true though. Corporations are more invested in laws and regulations that directly effect them. The control that they do have is thus their ability to write or help shape regulations to effect them as little as possible. The big picture is that we have a bureaucracy of regulations that have effectively stifled competition in the market, beyond what competition the government it constantly trying to remove. Because big businesses don't mind the regulation because the cost is so little to them, it completely prevents new businesses from starting due to regulations and thus costs being so high. Big business has eliminated competition and as a result make more.

    Outside of that it makes no sense for corporations to be interested in anything else in government except for a few companies/individuals here and there using their power money to sway some political movements like politicians, legislation not effecting them outside of their moral or social preference like some donating money to California propositions. Why would a venture capitalist be interested in donating for gay right? Corporations don't completely rule, in order for that to be true, you would have to also acknowledge a "New World Order". Sure a select few in the Bilderberg group think they can rule to world, let them think that.

    The problem isn't the elite few either. The problem is that this new wave of neo-liberal/progressive ideologies. A lot of people especially politicians genuinely believe that these polices are for the best, they just don't realize in their own ignorance that it is not and is part of the problem.
     
  7. egan.

    egan. daylightdies.com

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2002
    Messages:
    5,441
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    NorCal
    Firstly, your information is just sort of wrong. It's the 1880's that are generally considered as the US's greatest period of growth.
    Secondly, attributing US economic growth over the first 100 years to a popular political ideology of the time ignores that that growth was also predicated on increasing the land mass of the country by ten fold, enslaving around 12 million people and displacing around 18 million natives. It's hard to take seriously any notions of successful "freedom" that excluding a huge part of the population.
     
  8. TheWinterSnow

    TheWinterSnow Den Mørke Natt

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2008
    Messages:
    3,090
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Sacramento, CA
    The largest growth was from the 1870s to about 1914. Average economic growth was 3% which even to today's standard is blistering high, there was more trade and commerce than even today. Worldwide standard of living increased massively, the world was globalized even more than it was today. The enslaving of 12 million people was before the Belle Epoque and therefore slavery had nothing to do with the boom of the time. The displacement of Native Americans is irrelevant because we are talking about economic and standard of living growth throughout the world, not just the US. Again I never made mention that the time was better than our own, more or less pointing out that social change and as a result better living standards was a growing trend at that time.

    There were still bad things, injustices happening at the time, I was pointing out the general decrease in said injustices socially at the time.
     
  9. egan.

    egan. daylightdies.com

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2002
    Messages:
    5,441
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    NorCal
    You said:
    Which is why I mentioned slavery, and displacement both of which are inextricable from the US growth for the first 100 years. I'm not trying to go all Zinn on this, I'm just saying that millions of people had zero standard of living to make all that growth possible and any discussion of freedom and free markets during that period has to be viewed with that knowledge.
    Now that we agree that the Gilded Age was actually the greatest period of growth, I still have a hard time buying into your premise b/c so much of the improvements are based on imperial aspirations and of course trains. The reason why I bring up empires (or manifest destiny if you like) is that growth via those means looks very different today than it did at that point.
     
  10. drew_drummer

    drew_drummer Dancefap

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2008
    Messages:
    6,486
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    London, UK
    Hmm, I don't think you're using the word empirical right. I know what you're going for though; but this...

    Is exactly what I was getting at with my earlier comments. Personally I think freedom is a bit of an illusion. The best we've got are notions of compromise; my freedom to punch the air stops before point where I meet contact with your face as it were.
     
  11. John_C

    John_C formerly Skeksis268

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2008
    Messages:
    3,457
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    Coventry, UK
    Correct on all points*. However, I wasn't really trying to make a US/UK comparison.


    *(except the women stuff. I am entirely unconvinced by the stats on domestic abuse and gender. The balance of power in a confrontation is incredibly important: If my gf slapped me as hard as she can, I'd just get pissed off. If I slapped her as a hard as I can, she'd be utterly terrified of me. Both are domestic violence, but they are *very* different. )
     
  12. drew_drummer

    drew_drummer Dancefap

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2008
    Messages:
    6,486
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    London, UK
    Nor was I. I don't really know how you misinterpreted my statements like that tbh. It seemed to me that you were saying that Statism can sometimes be good, because it ensures freedoms and an even spread of opportunity. I was disagreeing pretty fundamentally with that assertion.


    Remain unconvinced all you want. The evidence disagrees with you. Also please drop the "men are stronger than women" schtick, because it's been thoroughly debunked. It's not just about slapping; knives, guns, hell even fucking PLATES being thrown around the room... none of that requires an upper body strength advantage (which is typically the only advantage most men have over women).

    Stats suggest that when women do commit acts of violence against their partners (who might also be a woman btw!) it is with weaponry or other objects. Stats also suggest that when women kill their husbands, they wait until he is asleep to do the act, or they hire someone else. So it's not really a case of man be strong... man hit woman... woman cry... man laugh maniacally!

    Our entire understanding of domestic violence (which you brought up I might add, so you can't facepalm and say I bang on about this stuff too much!) is flawed. It is based on the scientifically flawed Duluth model, which paints men as perpetrators and women as victims. It doesn't allow for women to be predatory, even though we know they can be, and it doesn't allow for men to be docile or conciliatory.

    In short - it has a huge built in bias against men resulting in opinions like your own, which have no real basis in reality.

    So that was just one example of one of your "freedoms" that doesn't really apply to everyone. Even if a minority of men are in a situation where they are being abused by their wife (and again, it isn't a vast minority - something like 43% of reported incidents were of this nature) they basically have next to zero resources... hence a lack of "freedom" ... and this "lack of freedom" is upheld by the state.

    Give this a read if you can be bothered:
    http://lab.drdondutton.com/wp-conte...am_-A-flawed-and-data-impervious-paradigm.pdf
     
  13. John_C

    John_C formerly Skeksis268

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2008
    Messages:
    3,457
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    Coventry, UK
    It sounded to me more like you were showing examples of practical failings in the UK implementation of those ideas, which is what I was agreeing with.
    You might say that those failings or others like them are inevitable, but you didn't state that.

    I guess I would just draw on my personal experience of having felt intimidated by several larger men, but never at all by any women (very aggressive ex gf included). Rightly or wrongly, the confidence that given an even setting I can comfortably overpower someone makes a big difference in how I feel about a situation.

    However, in more serious cases when weapons get involved I guess it's a rather different situation. After all, it really doesn't make a difference how hard you pull the trigger!


    Prejudice against men or women is not inherent to the idea of state provision. You seem to be using deep-seated cultural flaws in the UK to attack the idea of basic state protection...

    It's a bit heavy going without having the context. Is there anything a bit more introductory?
     
  14. drew_drummer

    drew_drummer Dancefap

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2008
    Messages:
    6,486
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    London, UK
    In a sense yes. But I'm more using the example of the UK as a pointer to the nature of state protection. It's not an attack, but more a comment on the problems that statism introduces. I'm not an out-and-out individualist "Randian" or anything like that. I see problems with both approaches.

    I deliberately steered clear of posting anything that would seem too biased or special interest. If you want something more digestible; check this out:


    Basically - domestic violence has more to do with sociopathic states of mind than it does with gender.

    Also both my parents beat me as a kid, so I'm pretty familiar with aggressive women acting in violent ways.
     
    #74 drew_drummer, Aug 25, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2015

Share This Page