Your mom is right. However it is a really half hearted because China do produce quite a bit of culture on it's own.
Most people I have met who study japanese at the universaty (with one expetion who was a history student) have a backround from watching anime. Many of them I know have lived in japan at some point. This helps increase japans global pressence. During the 80's many americans feared the advanced japanese. This fear was seen in a lot of culture around that time. Ironically Japan did some soul searching during that time reflecting on it themselves. Ghost in the shell (soon an american movie in 2017) is a study of japans relationship with this state of being.
France and Germany are refusing to give up the war on having a major language. During my fathers generation (he was born 1945) many people spoke german in Norway. These days all native Norwegians under 40 speak fluent English. This naturaly makes it harder to sell german producs in Norway contra english producs. We sell english magasines, books and movies. Not so much other languages.
I know more about American poletics then I do Danish, Finish, Sweedish, Islandic or british poletics. This is true for many of my generation.
Exporting your culture is a good way to increase ties with other countries. Including potensial markets, and also political allies.
But we are coming a bit of the topic of liberterianism, no?
You don't think potensial cultural imperalism is a problem when the Disney movies come? We in Norway take these things quite seriusly, or rather the branch of the goverment in charge of this takes this quite seriusly. When Disney channel launched in Norway NRK made a new channel, NRK 3. This channel is focused on children / youths. They do this to give children a fictional entertainment that more realisticly represent the culture they are growing up in. Instead of representing very american values, and also disneys lack of feminism. Or at least used to, Frozen was a step in the right direction (set in a fictional Norway mind you.)
Witout having american (or british or japansese) prodused culture saturate the market we are free to produse our own cultural products and distribute among other countries.
Seriously? We've got a wide-ranging discussion on economics, the military, and the US Constitution, and it's the House of Mouse you decide to focus on? That's really not a great move for you, partially because I probably know more about the Disney animated canon than I do about political history and philosophy, but mostly because it's the single most trivial subject on the table. So while I could mount a spirited feminist/multiculturalist defense of Disney films going back to Snow White, or rib you for your parochialism in happening to like the one movie that's maybe-kind-of-sort-of set in your country... I think we're done here.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
What is wrong with you? If you do not like what I write when you ask, why are you asking in the first place?
"It's really not a great move for you" What do you think this is? This is not a MMA match or a panel debate, there are no stakes here. I think the subject of liberterianism got left a long time ago when you started quoting every sentence you did not agree with.
If you do not like the subject matters they teach at my universaty what am I to do? I guess we should fire all the professors, and probably the parts of goverment in charge of theese things.
I was actually hoping to learn something here but I should have remembered that 'The medium is the message' and the forums of mtgsalvation is probably not the best place of non magic information.
If you do not like the subject matters they teach at my universaty what am I to do?
Think critically. At your university you should not just learn to regurgitate what the professors tell you. You should learn to question what they tell you, to demand their conclusions be supported by concrete facts and evidence, to draw your own conclusions and support them with the same. You say the American Revolution was inspired by French political thought? You can't expect people to believe that based only on your say-so. You can't even expect people to believe that based on your professors' say-so. If you want people to believe that the American Revolution was inspired by French political thought, you're going to have to prove it. Don't just say there's a connection, show it. It's not even really about persuading other people. If you can't show this connection, how do you know it's there?
I guess we should fire all the professors, and probably the parts of goverment in charge of theese things.
If they're actually teaching you that events in 1788 occurred before events in 1776, then yes, they absolutely should. But I'm going to give these people the benefit of the doubt. They're not here to defend themselves, and even the craziest profs I know understand how chronology works. So I think it's more likely that the mistake is yours than theirs.
And I was actually trying to teach you something here. You asked what was up with libertarianism in America, and I answered. But you apparently didn't like those answers and decided to argue with them, as though redefining "freedom" were going to change the reality of American culture. And when you launched into a muddled condemnation of libertarianism and the Constitution which was misinformed on not just random historical facts, but the specific historical facts of which you had already been informed in this thread, I decided it was time for some tough love. If you want to know how libertarians think or what Americans think about libertarianism, ask and I'll be happy to answer. But if you want to say that the Constitution is "outdated", that is not a question but a thesis statement, and I'm going to challenge you to defend it with real, specific, and accurate argument that demonstrates an understanding of the subject.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Nobody in this thread have responded to my inisial conserns with liberterianism in a satifying way.
The fact that you think you would 'winn an argument about disney' does not change the fact that my goverment sett in motion countermesure to offer a better alternative for choildrem when the disney channel launched.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I have dyslexia, no I am not going to spell check for you, yes you have to live with the horrors of it.
Nobody in this thread have responded to my inisial conserns with liberterianism in a satifying way.
The fact that you think you would 'winn an argument about disney' does not change the fact that my goverment sett in motion countermesure to offer a better alternative for choildrem when the disney channel launched.
Japan produced quality goods, their entertainment industry has a number of issues such as low pay for animators. I will say that there are many excellent products and goods that come out of Japan.
The US and equally Hong Kong have done more to forward Chinese culture than China itself has for much of the 20th and 21st century.
Khans of Tarkir
Kung Fu Panda
Bruce Lee
Jackie Chan
Anng The Last Avatar
The Legend of Korra
Jet Li was born in Beijing, China
So basically from there, Hong Kong using British ideas and adaptation created a lot of excellent works and produced some amazing stuff. The US with its fascination about the East has created some excellent works.
And least we not forget India's reaction to Modernity is Bollywood. And they do really well with musicals, so much so that they export them globally and are well recognized.
We have to face that Disney has existed for multiple decades. Just like Marvel and DC.
But Dragonball Z, Naruto, and other such shows have gained traction in the US. You can walk into a store and purchase Eastern goods. And the US has reacted with various shows. America has also enriched Jeti Li and Jackie Chan and Bruce Lee.
Alternatives are good, exporting quality products is better. We make Blade Runner. The Japanese made Ghost in the Shell. Both very good products, that anyone can watch and not be embarrassed to say its quality. Perhaps it is Norway that needs to step up production, just like China.
As an aside America has also "reacted" to having cartoon blocks disappear like Toonami that used to popularize a lot of these shows on television to be replaced by shows like Build Destroy Build. Then there were excellent shows like Young Justice that was replaced by lesser quality television shows aimed at boys who like random humor. Rather it was Young Justice who were bringing in women and little girls. The show had high ratings. It was taken off the air because merchandisers wanted to sell stuff to 8-12 year old boys, and in recent years they have instead began a superhero girls show with DC characters. Ironically, Sailor Moon already did that in the 1990's through Toonami which was a profitable show with merchandise ON THE VERY SAME STATION.
So even if Americans are prolific, they do make stupid decisions. Like making unisex action shows or girl centered action shows, because it didn't hit their target demographics. Instead of just summing up success and profiting from a new, expanded audience; girls. That's the real issue.
To quote Bruce Timm the creator of Young Justice and the decades long successful DC Animated Universe: "If they're (consumers, namely girls) aren't going to buy action figures, then sell them an umbrella or something."
Nobody in this thread have responded to my inisial conserns with liberterianism in a satifying way.
The fact that you think you would 'winn an argument about disney' does not change the fact that my goverment sett in motion countermesure to offer a better alternative for choildrem when the disney channel launched.
Well, we did explain how your false your premise was, and then gave you a history lesson or two when you defended it so I'm going to disagree.
No, FYGM, exists in every country. Perhaps you have heard of this refugee crisis in Syria and how people are refusing to let them into their countries because they are "full up."
One way to explain it is that libertarians are opposed to the government being above the law in the following ways: taxation- if a business or an individual were to partake in the forceful redistribution of money to the cause the he thought was worthy of it, he would be considered a thief, war- war is mass murder and conscription is slavery, why do we tolerate the government doing this and are fine with the government being above the law? I don't know.
Edit: an idea I recently came up with is that if we could get the government so small that its only purposes would be to provide a court system and national defense, couldn't it be funded voluntarily by the government starting a sort of lottery/online gambling business? I know I would buy lottery tickets if it meant supporting my military...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Quote from VidarThor » »
We have big social mobility, something libertarians want, but can not provide through libertarianism. If you look at social democracy from Scandinavia, its achievements are closer to the end goal of libertarianism then libertarianism itself has.
Edit: To be more precise. Is not the true measure of freedom how much can do? Instead of what your are allowed to do? Being allowed to do something is not the same as being able to do it. Are you not more free if you are able to do something instead of not being able to do it? I would think so.
Because raising your taxes reduces your freedom to decide how to spend your money, and providing you with state-run services reduces your freedom to shop around for the service you want. Social democracy sure as hell isn't fascism, but it's still unquestionably a relative reduction in personal freedom.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
What more are you looking for in the way of responses?
The fact that you think you would 'winn an argument about disney' does not change the fact that my goverment sett in motion countermeasure to offer a better alternative for choildrem when the disney channel launched.
Because it has nothing to do with the merits of libertarianism versus other governments. Anybody can say "I don't want my children watching Disney content." Such a ban is not dependent on European-style socialism. As much as any of us may or may not agree with you that European-style socialism is a good system, it is not the point. Would American libertarians be happy starting under that system? No, and it has to do with some earlier points: Americans are used to an oligarchical representative republic. As an American, I still would hesitate to call my country's government democratic. And there's still keeping in mind:
If you look at social democracy from Scandinavia, its achievements are closer to the end goal of libertarianism then libertarianism itself has.
Just my thoughts. Bernie Sanders was maybe to strange for America, but if his plans had been implemented (fat chance) the end goals of libertarians would be close then if libertarians has won.
However, a majority of Americans would heartily agree with Blinking Spirit:
Because raising your taxes reduces your freedom to decide how to spend your money, and providing you with state-run services reduces your freedom to shop around for the service you want. Social democracy sure as hell isn't fascism, but it's still unquestionably a relative reduction in personal freedom.
and feed into the propaganda machine hinted at by Lithl:
Because raising your taxes reduces your freedom to decide how to spend your money, and providing you with state-run services reduces your freedom to shop around for the service you want. Social democracy sure as hell isn't fascism, but it's still unquestionably a relative reduction in personal freedom.
Gotta disagree there in at least some contexts. A lot of vital services wouldn't exist, or wouldn't be available to many people, if taxes weren't a thing. It's pretty easy to come up with scenarios in which a certain tax for a certain goal increases most peoples' ability to live life how they choose.
To get around this, you have to do what a lot of libertarians do: narrow the definition of freedom until it means "no one who works for an official government organization can tell me what to do". In that definition, absolutely taxes limit personal freedom. So does a law banning murder, or a building code that reduces the chance of the building collapsing and killing everyone during an earthquake. When these issues are pointed out, libertarians tend to start brainstorming ways that groups of citizens could come together in order to economically punish dangerous businesses or imprison/execute murderers. Of course we'd need to ensure it's fair through some sort of clear process and codified rules, because otherwise no one would know if what they're doing is going to get them killed... And we'll need to figure out how to agree on which of these things will become 'laws'... But it's totally not a government.
Helpful links updated:
-New Youtube video under 'What About the Poor?'.
-Wikipedia page replaced MisesWiki link under 'What is Libertarianism?'.
-New book, 'The Problem of Political Authority', added under recommended books section.
-'What is Wrong With Our Government?' section added.
-'AnarchoCapitalism' section added.
Helpful links updated:
-New Youtube video under 'What About the Poor?'.
-Wikipedia page replaced MisesWiki link under 'What is Libertarianism?'.
-New book, 'The Problem of Political Authority', added under recommended books section.
-'What is Wrong With Our Government?' section added.
-'AnarchoCapitalism' section added.
Clicked on one link, saw this gem:
And without a central government “representing” an entire geographical area, there would be no reason for a foreign country to invade a large region if they did have such a dispute.
Gotta disagree there in at least some contexts. A lot of vital services wouldn't exist, or wouldn't be available to many people, if taxes weren't a thing. It's pretty easy to come up with scenarios in which a certain tax for a certain goal increases most peoples' ability to live life how they choose.
To get around this, you have to do what a lot of libertarians do: narrow the definition of freedom until it means "no one who works for an official government organization can tell me what to do". In that definition, absolutely taxes limit personal freedom. So does a law banning murder, or a building code that reduces the chance of the building collapsing and killing everyone during an earthquake. When these issues are pointed out, libertarians tend to start brainstorming ways that groups of citizens could come together in order to economically punish dangerous businesses or imprison/execute murderers. Of course we'd need to ensure it's fair through some sort of clear process and codified rules, because otherwise no one would know if what they're doing is going to get them killed... And we'll need to figure out how to agree on which of these things will become 'laws'... But it's totally not a government.
You're attacking two strawmen here, one per paragraph. The one in the second paragraph is more obvious, and it's also not an effigy of me, so let's just take a look at the first.
Of course taxes fund government services. But when you say this constitutes an increase in personal freedom because "most people" benefit from the services, that's more than a little misleading, because the "most people" who benefit are not necessarily the people who pay most of the tax. In fact, they generally aren't. If there is some service that will increase a person's personal freedom, then the government doesn't need to tax that person to pay for the service insofar as it benefits that person. If they have the money for it, they'll pay voluntarily. And if they don't have the money for it, then a tax isn't going to get money out of them that doesn't exist. So the purpose of a tax is to get more money out of some people who are able to afford it in order to provide the service to other people who are not. (In fact, in some cases, rich people pay a tax and then don't use the government-provided service at all. Private versus public education springs to mind.)
And again, none of this is necessarily a bad thing. Taxation is absolutely justified as long as the money is put to good use. But it is a reduction in personal freedom. The people who are paying the tax are losing the freedom to spend their money how they choose. This is not a matter of overly narrowing the definition; it's a matter of being analytical. To analyze the whole complex scenario of "taxes fund public services", we break it down into atomic components and examine them. Looking at the "taxes" part in isolation, we see this freedom loss and view it as a negative. It would not be okay if the government taxed us and then just sat on the money doing nothing. And the "government services" part is a positive. It would be very good if the government could provide us with the services without taxing us. The taxation is only justified because it is necessary for the government services. The positive outweighs the negative for a net good.
But this doesn't erase the negative or turn it into a positive. It's still a negative per se, and it's important to remember that. You may think I'm being pedantic here, but like I said earlier, this distinction I am making is the same distinction as "shooting people is a bad thing that is sometimes necessary to preserve certain good things" versus "shooting people is a good thing".
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
This comes down, like I said, to how we define personal freedom. If it's defined as "no one who works for the government can tell me what to do" I agree with you that taxes limit that definition of personal freedom. I said as much. I'm not sure this is precisely the definition you're using, but it's the one I commonly run across with libertarians (albeit more glibly stated).
However, I think it's too limited a definition to be useful because it ignores what those tax dollars are being spent on. In short, it ignores the consequence of those taxes. This is like saying, "surgery means you're being cut so it's a net negative in personal health, but sometimes is necessary for other reasons". However, the surgery itself is supposed to cause a much larger gain in personal health than the cut cost you. It's misleading to say that taxes are a reduction in personal freedom without looking at what opportunities the tax expenditures protect or create.
Things look different if we define personal freedom closer to a core dictionary definition; the power to act, speak and think as one wants. It's very easy to come up with scenarios in which taxes create government programs that expand and defend those options overall. Government programs can protect people from private citizens and businesses that would stifle their pursuit of happiness far more than a tax does.
In short, it ignores the consequence of those taxes.
It ought to. Because taxes do not necessarily have those consequences. The elements in the scenario are separable. It is very, very easy for a state to tax its citizens and then not provide the government services which would justify the tax. If you have a moral valence for "taxes + government services" but not a moral valence for "taxes" per se, your analysis is superficial and cannot address the separated scenario.
This is like saying, "surgery means you're being cut so it's a net negative in personal health, but sometimes is necessary for other reasons".
Exactly. Generally we don't think cutting people is a good idea. If somebody proposes cutting people, they need to justify it. We don't undergo surgery lightly, and when we do undergo it we expect results.
It's misleading to say that taxes are a reduction in personal freedom without looking at what opportunities the tax expenditures protect or create.
No, it's misleading to say that the health benefits of surgery mean the surgeon isn't cutting you. This is effectively what you're doing here. Surgery = taxation; cutting = reducing personal freedom; negative = negative; health benefits = government services; positive = positive.
Things look different if we define personal freedom closer to a core dictionary definition; the power to act, speak and think as one wants.
I want to act by spending this money I have. Taxing the money removes that power from me. This isn't a definitional disagreement; any sensible definition of personal freedom is going to find taxation per se as a reduction in it. The problem, again, is that you're conflating taxation with the consequences of taxation.
In short, it ignores the consequence of those taxes.
It ought to. Because taxes do not necessarily have those consequences. The elements in the scenario are separable. It is very, very easy for a state to tax its citizens and then not provide the government services which would justify the tax. If you have a moral valence for "taxes + government services" but not a moral valence for "taxes" per se, your analysis is superficial and cannot address the separated scenario.
This is ignoring my argument entirely. My entire argument is policy-based, because I believe that looking just at the costs incurred as misleading when discussing libertarianism (more on this later). My argument is that it's very possible to create a policy which imposes a tax in order to create services which increase the total opportunities available for the pursuit of happiness (compared to what would be available without that policy). Ignoring the service side of the equation is talking past me. It's the same as demanding a health-based valence for "cutting" instead of a valence for an entire medical procedure, and using that to claim that "cutting is always unhealthy, but it can lead to other benefits that don't involve health". If you want to say "taxes always limit freedom on their own, but the revenue can be spent on services which result in net increase in personal freedom" I'm with you.
Otherwise we can just end the discussion there, because there's nothing more to talk about.
Exactly. Generally we don't think cutting people is a good idea. If somebody proposes cutting people, they need to justify it. We don't undergo surgery lightly, and when we do undergo it we expect results.
Glad you agree. Cutting someone is not healthy, but there are many surgical procedures that result in a net increase in health. Likewise, there are many public policies which can impose taxes to then result in a net increase in personal freedom. If you agree with this, we're straight.
Things look different if we define personal freedom closer to a core dictionary definition; the power to act, speak and think as one wants.
I want to act by spending this money I have. Taxing the money removes that power from me. This isn't a definitional disagreement; any sensible definition of personal freedom is going to find taxation per se as a reduction in it. The problem, again, is that you're conflating taxation with the consequences of taxation.
No, I'm not conflating taxation with the consequences of taxation. I just find it utterly meaningless to separate them in this context. Libertarianism is all about maximizing personal freedom (broadly speaking). Therefore, many libertarians (it's a diverse ideology) oppose taxes because they view a world without taxes as a world with more personal freedom. This is akin, as I have mentioned, to a group all about maximizing health being against surgery because they think any form of cutting someone is bad for their health.
The point I raise is that it's easy to propose circumstances in which a world with certain taxes in order to pay for certain services offers its citizens more personal freedom than the same world in which those taxes were not present, resulting in the loss of the services they funded. These two outcomes are what I'm comparing. Similar to a world where no one is ever allowed to cut anyone under any circumstance is going to be less healthy than a world where doctors are allowed to perform certain surgical procedures.
This is why saying taxes are always a reduction in personal freedom is misleading. It's not incorrect when viewed in a vacuum, but you don't have to be incorrect to be misleading. At least, statements like that have misled many libertarians I've engaged with.
Ignoring the service side of the equation is talking past me. It's the same as demanding a health-based valence for "cutting" instead of a valence for an entire medical procedure...
We want all the valences to do a complete analysis. Let me put it another way: if we just see the net valence and that it is positive, rather than seeing the valences of the individual elements and that there is a negative in there, we're less likely to ask, "Is this negative element necessary here? Is there maybe a way we can reduce or eliminate it?" Sometimes, as here, the negative element is necessary, but it's still better to be aware of it. It's like taking a budget and just looking at the bottom line rather than the itemized breakdown.
If you want to say "taxes always limit freedom on their own, but the revenue can be spent on services which result in net increase in personal freedom" I'm with you.
It's a little more complicated than that, because, like I said, the net increases in personal freedom tend to happen to other people than the ones paying the tax, and also because many government services provide benefits which, while still indisputably positive things, would be a stretch to call "increases in personal freedom". Freedom is not the only good.
Good thing that wasn't what I was saying. If I was, it would invalidate my entire argument.
You kind of were, though. You were saying that taxation wasn't a reduction in personal freedom.
No I wasn't. And I've clarified this numerous times in my last two posts. It seems unproductive to continue this discussion, since I'm not interested in continually re-explaining what I said. If I haven't made it clear by now, I doubt I will.
Why are you posting links en masse into a debate thread without even using them to support an argument? Make an argument. No one's going to watch and respond to every claim made in multiple videos.
The reason I'm doing this is because I want to help spread the message of liberty.
Here is my argument: taxation is theft(no government isn't somekind of contractual entity because in order for a contract to be legitimate, all people involved in the contract must agree to the terms of the contract and I haven't agreed to any such contract, such a contract hasn't even been proposed to me. Also just move somewhere else isnt a valid argument, if I told you that I would stop stealing from you if you moved away, that wouldn't justify me continuing to steal from you if you didnt move away).
Here is my argument: taxation is theft(no government isn't somekind of contractual entity because in order for a contract to be legitimate, all people involved in the contract must agree to the terms of the contract and I haven't agreed to any such contract, such a contract hasn't even been proposed to me. Also just move somewhere else isnt a valid argument, if I told you that I would stop stealing from you if you moved away, that wouldn't justify me continuing to steal from you if you didnt move away).
Okay. So you want to abolish all taxes and government-funded services?
Okay. And so let's assume anarchy, no government, no police, no judges and no laws. Naturally we still have criminals attacking people and stealing from people. I assume you don't like that, because you seem very opposed to theft. What's your plan for protecting our personal freedoms?
Okay. And so let's assume anarchy, no government, no police, no judges and no laws. Naturally we still have criminals attacking people and stealing from people. I assume you don't like that, because you seem very opposed to theft. What's your plan for protecting our personal freedoms?
Most people I have met who study japanese at the universaty (with one expetion who was a history student) have a backround from watching anime. Many of them I know have lived in japan at some point. This helps increase japans global pressence. During the 80's many americans feared the advanced japanese. This fear was seen in a lot of culture around that time. Ironically Japan did some soul searching during that time reflecting on it themselves. Ghost in the shell (soon an american movie in 2017) is a study of japans relationship with this state of being.
France and Germany are refusing to give up the war on having a major language. During my fathers generation (he was born 1945) many people spoke german in Norway. These days all native Norwegians under 40 speak fluent English. This naturaly makes it harder to sell german producs in Norway contra english producs. We sell english magasines, books and movies. Not so much other languages.
I know more about American poletics then I do Danish, Finish, Sweedish, Islandic or british poletics. This is true for many of my generation.
Exporting your culture is a good way to increase ties with other countries. Including potensial markets, and also political allies.
But we are coming a bit of the topic of liberterianism, no?
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
"It's really not a great move for you" What do you think this is? This is not a MMA match or a panel debate, there are no stakes here. I think the subject of liberterianism got left a long time ago when you started quoting every sentence you did not agree with.
If you do not like the subject matters they teach at my universaty what am I to do? I guess we should fire all the professors, and probably the parts of goverment in charge of theese things.
I was actually hoping to learn something here but I should have remembered that 'The medium is the message' and the forums of mtgsalvation is probably not the best place of non magic information.
If they're actually teaching you that events in 1788 occurred before events in 1776, then yes, they absolutely should. But I'm going to give these people the benefit of the doubt. They're not here to defend themselves, and even the craziest profs I know understand how chronology works. So I think it's more likely that the mistake is yours than theirs.
And I was actually trying to teach you something here. You asked what was up with libertarianism in America, and I answered. But you apparently didn't like those answers and decided to argue with them, as though redefining "freedom" were going to change the reality of American culture. And when you launched into a muddled condemnation of libertarianism and the Constitution which was misinformed on not just random historical facts, but the specific historical facts of which you had already been informed in this thread, I decided it was time for some tough love. If you want to know how libertarians think or what Americans think about libertarianism, ask and I'll be happy to answer. But if you want to say that the Constitution is "outdated", that is not a question but a thesis statement, and I'm going to challenge you to defend it with real, specific, and accurate argument that demonstrates an understanding of the subject.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
The fact that you think you would 'winn an argument about disney' does not change the fact that my goverment sett in motion countermesure to offer a better alternative for choildrem when the disney channel launched.
Japan produced quality goods, their entertainment industry has a number of issues such as low pay for animators. I will say that there are many excellent products and goods that come out of Japan.
The US and equally Hong Kong have done more to forward Chinese culture than China itself has for much of the 20th and 21st century.
Khans of Tarkir
Kung Fu Panda
Bruce Lee
Jackie Chan
Anng The Last Avatar
The Legend of Korra
Jet Li was born in Beijing, China
So basically from there, Hong Kong using British ideas and adaptation created a lot of excellent works and produced some amazing stuff. The US with its fascination about the East has created some excellent works.
China's challenge to Kung Fu Panda: http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/article/China-s-culture-clash-over-Kung-Fu-Panda-2365499.php
My own opinion is that when China, that is Hong Kong, takes the best of the west they really run with it in excellent ways.
Then we have Nigeria's booming industry: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/19/world/africa/with-a-boom-before-the-cameras-nigeria-redefines-african-life.html
And least we not forget India's reaction to Modernity is Bollywood. And they do really well with musicals, so much so that they export them globally and are well recognized.
We have to face that Disney has existed for multiple decades. Just like Marvel and DC.
But Dragonball Z, Naruto, and other such shows have gained traction in the US. You can walk into a store and purchase Eastern goods. And the US has reacted with various shows. America has also enriched Jeti Li and Jackie Chan and Bruce Lee.
Alternatives are good, exporting quality products is better. We make Blade Runner. The Japanese made Ghost in the Shell. Both very good products, that anyone can watch and not be embarrassed to say its quality. Perhaps it is Norway that needs to step up production, just like China.
As an aside America has also "reacted" to having cartoon blocks disappear like Toonami that used to popularize a lot of these shows on television to be replaced by shows like Build Destroy Build. Then there were excellent shows like Young Justice that was replaced by lesser quality television shows aimed at boys who like random humor. Rather it was Young Justice who were bringing in women and little girls. The show had high ratings. It was taken off the air because merchandisers wanted to sell stuff to 8-12 year old boys, and in recent years they have instead began a superhero girls show with DC characters. Ironically, Sailor Moon already did that in the 1990's through Toonami which was a profitable show with merchandise ON THE VERY SAME STATION.
So even if Americans are prolific, they do make stupid decisions. Like making unisex action shows or girl centered action shows, because it didn't hit their target demographics. Instead of just summing up success and profiting from a new, expanded audience; girls. That's the real issue.
To quote Bruce Timm the creator of Young Justice and the decades long successful DC Animated Universe: "If they're (consumers, namely girls) aren't going to buy action figures, then sell them an umbrella or something."
Modern
Commander
Cube
<a href="http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/the-cube-forum/cube-lists/588020-unpowered-themed-enchantment-an-enchanted-evening">An Enchanted Evening Cube </a>
Well, we did explain how your false your premise was, and then gave you a history lesson or two when you defended it so I'm going to disagree.
Let's go through some responses:
This entire post.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
See this post.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This post applies here.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
What more are you looking for in the way of responses?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And a bit in closing:
Because it has nothing to do with the merits of libertarianism versus other governments. Anybody can say "I don't want my children watching Disney content." Such a ban is not dependent on European-style socialism. As much as any of us may or may not agree with you that European-style socialism is a good system, it is not the point. Would American libertarians be happy starting under that system? No, and it has to do with some earlier points: Americans are used to an oligarchical representative republic. As an American, I still would hesitate to call my country's government democratic. And there's still keeping in mind:
After all, it's certainly true that:
However, a majority of Americans would heartily agree with Blinking Spirit:
and feed into the propaganda machine hinted at by Lithl:
It's unfortunate, but that's how it is.
Gotta disagree there in at least some contexts. A lot of vital services wouldn't exist, or wouldn't be available to many people, if taxes weren't a thing. It's pretty easy to come up with scenarios in which a certain tax for a certain goal increases most peoples' ability to live life how they choose.
To get around this, you have to do what a lot of libertarians do: narrow the definition of freedom until it means "no one who works for an official government organization can tell me what to do". In that definition, absolutely taxes limit personal freedom. So does a law banning murder, or a building code that reduces the chance of the building collapsing and killing everyone during an earthquake. When these issues are pointed out, libertarians tend to start brainstorming ways that groups of citizens could come together in order to economically punish dangerous businesses or imprison/execute murderers. Of course we'd need to ensure it's fair through some sort of clear process and codified rules, because otherwise no one would know if what they're doing is going to get them killed... And we'll need to figure out how to agree on which of these things will become 'laws'... But it's totally not a government.
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
-New Youtube video under 'What About the Poor?'.
-Wikipedia page replaced MisesWiki link under 'What is Libertarianism?'.
-New book, 'The Problem of Political Authority', added under recommended books section.
-'What is Wrong With Our Government?' section added.
-'AnarchoCapitalism' section added.
Clicked on one link, saw this gem:
Does that sound correct to you?
Of course taxes fund government services. But when you say this constitutes an increase in personal freedom because "most people" benefit from the services, that's more than a little misleading, because the "most people" who benefit are not necessarily the people who pay most of the tax. In fact, they generally aren't. If there is some service that will increase a person's personal freedom, then the government doesn't need to tax that person to pay for the service insofar as it benefits that person. If they have the money for it, they'll pay voluntarily. And if they don't have the money for it, then a tax isn't going to get money out of them that doesn't exist. So the purpose of a tax is to get more money out of some people who are able to afford it in order to provide the service to other people who are not. (In fact, in some cases, rich people pay a tax and then don't use the government-provided service at all. Private versus public education springs to mind.)
And again, none of this is necessarily a bad thing. Taxation is absolutely justified as long as the money is put to good use. But it is a reduction in personal freedom. The people who are paying the tax are losing the freedom to spend their money how they choose. This is not a matter of overly narrowing the definition; it's a matter of being analytical. To analyze the whole complex scenario of "taxes fund public services", we break it down into atomic components and examine them. Looking at the "taxes" part in isolation, we see this freedom loss and view it as a negative. It would not be okay if the government taxed us and then just sat on the money doing nothing. And the "government services" part is a positive. It would be very good if the government could provide us with the services without taxing us. The taxation is only justified because it is necessary for the government services. The positive outweighs the negative for a net good.
But this doesn't erase the negative or turn it into a positive. It's still a negative per se, and it's important to remember that. You may think I'm being pedantic here, but like I said earlier, this distinction I am making is the same distinction as "shooting people is a bad thing that is sometimes necessary to preserve certain good things" versus "shooting people is a good thing".
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
However, I think it's too limited a definition to be useful because it ignores what those tax dollars are being spent on. In short, it ignores the consequence of those taxes. This is like saying, "surgery means you're being cut so it's a net negative in personal health, but sometimes is necessary for other reasons". However, the surgery itself is supposed to cause a much larger gain in personal health than the cut cost you. It's misleading to say that taxes are a reduction in personal freedom without looking at what opportunities the tax expenditures protect or create.
Things look different if we define personal freedom closer to a core dictionary definition; the power to act, speak and think as one wants. It's very easy to come up with scenarios in which taxes create government programs that expand and defend those options overall. Government programs can protect people from private citizens and businesses that would stifle their pursuit of happiness far more than a tax does.
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
Exactly. Generally we don't think cutting people is a good idea. If somebody proposes cutting people, they need to justify it. We don't undergo surgery lightly, and when we do undergo it we expect results.
No, it's misleading to say that the health benefits of surgery mean the surgeon isn't cutting you. This is effectively what you're doing here. Surgery = taxation; cutting = reducing personal freedom; negative = negative; health benefits = government services; positive = positive.
I want to act by spending this money I have. Taxing the money removes that power from me. This isn't a definitional disagreement; any sensible definition of personal freedom is going to find taxation per se as a reduction in it. The problem, again, is that you're conflating taxation with the consequences of taxation.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
This is ignoring my argument entirely. My entire argument is policy-based, because I believe that looking just at the costs incurred as misleading when discussing libertarianism (more on this later). My argument is that it's very possible to create a policy which imposes a tax in order to create services which increase the total opportunities available for the pursuit of happiness (compared to what would be available without that policy). Ignoring the service side of the equation is talking past me. It's the same as demanding a health-based valence for "cutting" instead of a valence for an entire medical procedure, and using that to claim that "cutting is always unhealthy, but it can lead to other benefits that don't involve health". If you want to say "taxes always limit freedom on their own, but the revenue can be spent on services which result in net increase in personal freedom" I'm with you.
Otherwise we can just end the discussion there, because there's nothing more to talk about.
Glad you agree. Cutting someone is not healthy, but there are many surgical procedures that result in a net increase in health. Likewise, there are many public policies which can impose taxes to then result in a net increase in personal freedom. If you agree with this, we're straight.
Good thing that wasn't what I was saying. If I was, it would invalidate my entire argument.
No, I'm not conflating taxation with the consequences of taxation. I just find it utterly meaningless to separate them in this context. Libertarianism is all about maximizing personal freedom (broadly speaking). Therefore, many libertarians (it's a diverse ideology) oppose taxes because they view a world without taxes as a world with more personal freedom. This is akin, as I have mentioned, to a group all about maximizing health being against surgery because they think any form of cutting someone is bad for their health.
The point I raise is that it's easy to propose circumstances in which a world with certain taxes in order to pay for certain services offers its citizens more personal freedom than the same world in which those taxes were not present, resulting in the loss of the services they funded. These two outcomes are what I'm comparing. Similar to a world where no one is ever allowed to cut anyone under any circumstance is going to be less healthy than a world where doctors are allowed to perform certain surgical procedures.
This is why saying taxes are always a reduction in personal freedom is misleading. It's not incorrect when viewed in a vacuum, but you don't have to be incorrect to be misleading. At least, statements like that have misled many libertarians I've engaged with.
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
It's a little more complicated than that, because, like I said, the net increases in personal freedom tend to happen to other people than the ones paying the tax, and also because many government services provide benefits which, while still indisputably positive things, would be a stretch to call "increases in personal freedom". Freedom is not the only good.
You kind of were, though. You were saying that taxation wasn't a reduction in personal freedom.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
No I wasn't. And I've clarified this numerous times in my last two posts. It seems unproductive to continue this discussion, since I'm not interested in continually re-explaining what I said. If I haven't made it clear by now, I doubt I will.
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
What About Monopolies?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNrHFZDIAl8
What about the Environment?:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Gmds8R7lyw
What's so bad about our government?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUS1m5MSt9k (pt.1)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhSqzANQvbk (pt.2)
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
Here is my argument: taxation is theft(no government isn't somekind of contractual entity because in order for a contract to be legitimate, all people involved in the contract must agree to the terms of the contract and I haven't agreed to any such contract, such a contract hasn't even been proposed to me. Also just move somewhere else isnt a valid argument, if I told you that I would stop stealing from you if you moved away, that wouldn't justify me continuing to steal from you if you didnt move away).
Okay. So you want to abolish all taxes and government-funded services?
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
Private security apparently, given previous posts
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice