MTG Salvation

What amuses me most about the "government is the root of corruption that wouldn't be present in private hands" is that it goes like this: "Look at all these greedy officials using their power for personal gain! Let's throw out this voting thing and rely on pure capitalism. Hooray for a system based entirely off of greed!"

Rich jerks using their money and power to force other people to do what they want is how you get kings in the first place.

Quote from Kahedron »

Quote from Stairc »

And who decides what this private security is allowed to do? What if a drug lord decides to use his private security to disappear people?

Whoever pays them and try and hire a bigger better armed security firm are the only answers we have managed to get out of MTGTCG nd have been repeated ad infinitum.

Honestly, that's not a bad plan. How about we gather together and pool our money to pay for a shared private security force for all citizens? But of course, people won't want to pay if they don't have to... So let's agree to impose a mandatory fee on everyone to pay for this security force. That way we can ensure it's the biggest one around, and can't be out-muscled by competing private companies. After all, we're the ones paying them. We can make the decisions about what they do.

Spot any holes in this MTGTCG?

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.

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.

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.

I couldn't get past her answer to the first question. Just massively dishonest.

Question Was: "What did John Oliver get wrong about your plan to cancel student debt."

Context: John Oliver took her argument to cancel student debt through quantitative easing, and pointed out that the president has no power to do it and that she doesn't seem to even know what it is. She just keeps calling it a "magic trick". It's not. It's introduction of new money into the money supply by the central bank. Basically you say, "Hey, we can't pay for this. Let's print more money!" Obviously this has HUGE repercussions on the economy, as any econ 101 student can tell you with regard to inflation. There are gigantic historical parallels. He was right to call it as absurd as Trump's plan to stop illegal immigration by building a giant wall. It's the same kind of child logic. How do we stop people coming into our country? Build a big wall! Like really big! How do we pay for something? Print more money! Like a trillion more money!

Stein's answer:
1) We bailed out the banks, let's bail out the students! (Irrelevant response to his criticism)
2) Quantitative easing is "controversial" but it works. It's a magic trick (Don't need to explain why this is a non-response and ignorant/duplicitous).
3) There's lots of other ways to pay for it! Maybe we just don't make a bunch more nuclear weapons (irrelevant to her ignorance on quantitative easing which she's pushed hugely).
4) It's not fair. John Olvier never makes fun of Clinton (yes he does, he makes fun of her a lot more than he does Stein. Also irrelevant to his criticism).

This is absurd. It was just the FIRST question.

EDIT - The very next question was a follow-up asking for details on Stein's plan and her response: "Details aren't important, what's important is that we want to do it."

*facepalm* Hello Mrs. Trump.

Honestly I thought Oliver was too gentle on Stein. The emphasis on the album was fake-outrage, and took up a lot of time that could have been spent making it clear that she has barely more experience than Donald Trump and considerably fewer credentials than Sarah Palin.

Fiction doesn't mean "Wrong" in this context. Should scientific works that have since been disproven be moved to the fiction section? Browsing through the Dresden Files, do you expect to find an old textbook with an outdated quantum theory?

The bible isn't intended as fiction, whether it's correct or not.

A milestone that produces significant extra funding is significant in terms of being difficult to achieve and an essential preequisite for success. It's not significant in terms of changing his chances here.

It's like saying getting into the Olympics is a significant milestone for a country. This is true, but it doesn't make it feasible that you're going to win a gold medal. It just means that you have to get in before you can even compete.

Johnson has faced almost no scrutiny because the media doesn't take him seriously. He gets almost no attention or airtime. Despite that, he's already got multiple gaffes on record. This implies that if he actually got the attention he wants, we'd see a lot more of these "Aleppo moments".

Stein can barely get on the ballot. That's not easy, but it's a lot easier than sweeping reform. She's also under no scrutiny, while literally every stutter of Clinton's is blasted across the media as evidence she's dying. She also knows she can promise whatever she wants, because she'll never have to live up to it.

Stein's not a great or effective candidate. She just has nothing to lose.

Quote from MTGTCG »

I dont want to pay for this overwhelming superiority you speak off... If you want to pay for that then by all means go ahead.

If you don't want to pay for it then by all means move. If you don't move then you're stealing the service provided by the military without paying for it. And no, you don't get to claim you didn't consent to the service. The United States and its military were here long before you were. If you buy property in America you do so knowing full well what American residency entails.

Quote from MTGTCG »

I don't see how a policy of complete neutrality and universal free trade would anger any country thus reducing the risk of conflict.

And that's kind of the problem. Even before we go into the specific ways this policy might anger other countries, you're resting the security of your country on the assumption that it definitely won't, that everything will always go right. Your planning is based on a best-case scenario, not a worst-case scenario. You're making an investment while ignoring the risk. You're engaging in wishful thinking.

Now, as for those specific ways other countries might find reason to wage war against you, the first and most obvious is that if everything does go right for you and you get rich off of trade, then you're rich. Attacking rich lands and taking their wealth is one of the oldest reasons for warfare there is. Your invader might just want to plunder you and leave, they might make you a tributary, or they might try to conquer you so they can control and tax this wonderful trade hub directly. That's one reason. Reason two is that your invader is another trading power and wants to shut down your trade, rendering theirs more valuable. States can engage in monopolistic practices just as easily as companies can. Reason three is that in your neutrality you're trading with both sides in a war, and one side decides that your trade is benefiting the other side too much to be allowed to continue unabated. Reason four is that your land is strategically valuable. Reason five is that you're just plain the wrong religion. Reason six... reason seven... I can go on and on. Human beings don't exactly need a lot of excuse to go to war.

And before you dismiss these scenarios as not likely, remember that, between the two of us, I'm the one drawing his arguments from the historical record, and you're the one repeatedly face-planting into that same record. Not only can I provide examples of all these things actually happening, I can provide examples of all these things actually happening without leaving the freaking Netherlands.

Quote from MTGTCG »

I forgot to address your argument against my proposed gambling system of funding the minarchic government: if someone wants to ruin their life by gambling, more power to them, it is not my job to tell people what they can or can not do, and I shouldn't be guilty for allowing them to excersise their free will.

Washing your hands of moral responsibility for the consequences of your actions is not a good way to convince us that libertarianism is the morally superior system.

Jill Stein is just a watered down version of Vermin Supreme and should have never made the ballot

Quote from Cranial_extraction »

The more politicians turn their back on Trump the more I want him to be president. First the media and Democrats try their best to turn people from him. Then a bunch of rich elitist celebrities try to sway people away from him. Now his own party is abandoning him.

New polling finds Republicans agree, although I suspect it's because politics is more tribal now than about the person.

Quote from Cranial_extraction »

Everyone has said vulgar things in their life when they are in private or among friends, anyone who says otherwise is lying. All this does is make him more human and less establishment.

I feel the opposite. I've joked with friends lewdly, but I've never bragged about using my social status to casually rape women... or even had an ex-wife testify under oath that I raped her. I've also cut people out of my life who have done similar things to Trump.

See also Tiax's comment on rape culture.

Quote from Cranial_extraction »

The fact it came out the same day as wikileaks releasing more of Clinton's emails proving she hates middle and lower class Americans is like a shining beacon of guilt. They must've had this video for years and waited to throw it down and try to take the spotlight of Hillary.

Could you source this please? Everything I've read indicates that Hillary Clinton struggles with being out of touch with Middle to lower classes, not hating them, and that's not what I read in the leaks themselves.

Quote from Cranial_extraction »

The funny thing about this whole election is right now, had the DNC not cheated Sanders, he would be crushing Trump in the polls. The only reason it's close is that most Americans do not trust Clinton. Sanders being so different from Trump would be gathering voters in droves. Solely based on the fact that he isn't hated as much as trump, or distrusted as much as Hillary.

I'm not entirely sure. He'd have an edge because so little of his support defected to Jill Stein, but since so much of his support defected to Gary Johnson, a man who has the literal opposite economic and political reform platform, makes me wonder how many of them were truly going to never bail in the first place. Also, I've read studies where when pollsters pressed Bernie's weaknesses, such as when he praised Cuba's regime for their healthcare (it's not hard to spin that into praising Cuba's regime), Bernie's massive lead begins to dwindle. Part of Bernie's appeal was in fact manufactured by the fact everyone pulled punches against him. The left because they knew that sooner or later they would either need Bernie's support in winning the general election, and the Right because if they gave Bernie a free pass in the Primaries, they could try and tear him a new one come August because they viewed him as a weaker candidate than Clinton.

Quote from TaheenMage »

I don't get the outrage over the ***** comments.

I mean, its not like the folks out there don't indulge in a bit of *****talking amongst friends. Take when a group of us ended up at a strip club because one of the girls in our pack suddenly decided "hey, let's go to the hustler club!" There were a couple of working girls that had obviously had some c-sections or two in their lifetime - and the ladies in our group were making cracks about "this is why we can't have nice things" while they worked the poles. We were pretty much groaning at the larger workers, but they could get downright vicious lol.

edit

I do get the outrage over the tax loophole - I assume most of those outraged weren't sharp enough to look for loopholes to save a bit of money.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Lots of people like Taheen here simply don't find Donald Trump's comments unacceptable. He isn't suffering from a "lack of news literacy". He isn't ignorant of what Trump said and did. There's a large swath of America that is perfectly okay with misogyny and racism, and it's about time we stopped pretending like that's not true.

Quote from TaheenMage »

I don't get the outrage over the ***** comments.

It was not the vulgarity it was the fact that he said as a rich man he could kiss and grab the ***** of women whenever he wanted, without consent. The guy is simply a misogynist. Look at treatment of Miss Universe, Megan Kelly and his feud with Rosie.

Quote from The_Shady_Prophet »

Cool. You can be a miserable cynic and vote for some moron all you want. I'm gonna vote with my gut, and win or lose at least I'll know I did my part to try to get the actual right candidate in office instead of a lying **** or obnoxious windbag.

That's fine. I'm not saying you can't vote for Johnson. I'm saying your assessment that "he has a solid shot" is factually incorrect. Vote your conscience, but don't expect miracles.

Quote from The_Shady_Prophet »

If Johnson gets on the stage, he has a solid shot.

I don't know how many ways I can phrase it: this is a complete fantasy. Whenever you repeat it, all it does is make you look alarmingly out of touch with reality, like an adult man describing what he wants Santa to bring him for Christmas this year. Stop wishing on a star and freaking look at how third-party candidates perform in this country. The presidential election is not a storybook. Dark-horse heroes do not come from behind to win it all because they're honest and righteous and true. They lose, badly, because their campaigns are much more poorly funded and organized, because their parties don't have brand recognition, and because most Americans who are aware of them genuinely think they're not so much "honest and righteous and true" as "nutty extremist fringe". You can believe as much as you want that this is unfair. I'm not trying to tell you that it's fair. I'm trying to tell you that it's what happens. If my dream candidate came along and ran as a third-party nominee, it would happen to him too. No matter how much I wished and hoped and yearned and talked him up on the internet.

Quote from ArvinLarn »

Trump is probably the better choice you Americans can make. Sure, he's obnoxious, rude, and says a lot of strange things, but that's nothing compared to a corrupt stogie for wall street who most likely has brain damage, either from an accident where she hit her head or syphilis contracted from Billy.

The real problem is that he is both unstable and has no idea what is going on in the world. Last week he didn't even know that Russia had invaded Ukraine. Between the two Trump is far more likely to start a war or initiate nuclear winter because someone insulted his hair piece. Also can you really bring up anything about Bill's sexual history while trying to defend a man who raped at least one of his three wives, hit on his own daughter and has slept with who knows how many pageant contestants? Seems a bit hypocritical don't you think?

Quote from ArvinLarn »

Trump is probably the better choice you Americans can make. Sure, he's obnoxious, rude, and says a lot of strange things, but that's nothing compared to a corrupt stogie for wall street who most likely has brain damage, either from an accident where she hit her head or syphilis contracted from Billy.

That's funny. If you replace the "she" with "he," you have a perfect description of Trump.

Quote from Blinking Spirit »

Quote from Stairc »

That said, the basic issue is pretty simple. The movement values "Freedom" because "freedom" because "freedom". If something increased freedom, good. If something decreases freedom, bad. Why freedom good? Because freedom. Is anything else good? Not if it reduces freedom. Because freedom is good.

Freedom is not the ultimate good, but it is the closest thing to an ultimate good that a society can pursue as a general project. This is because there is no one ultimate good -- everybody has their own, be it family or fame or wealth or Pokémon. So society can't say, "Let's help everybody raise a family, and then we'll be doing good", because not everybody wants to raise a family. But society can say, "Let's make sure everybody is free to pursue their own goals, and then we'll be doing good".

You’re saying that there is no definition of freedom that does not involve someone’s subjective good, but then you just avoid that by setting out a definition that is void for vagueness instead. How do you make verify that everyone is “free to pursue their own goals?”, when you refuse to set out even a limited set of what that pursuit looks like? I hope by this exercise it’s clear that you either have a definition of private rights that is subjective, or you have no private rights at all.

History will show as well that, yes, a society can, should, and does choose its own values. We can (and do) decide that we value human lives, and in so doing, give people assistance who have children. Same with public infrastructure, health care, education, or anything that you decide. If you leave the interpretation as vague as “freedom to pursue goals”, then people in power will use that vagueness to shoehorn whatever they want into that.

Uh oh. You don’t have a job because they were all given to White people? Well, at least you had the freedom to put in an application. We can only guarantee the “freedom to pursue your goals”, not anything of any substance. We hope there’s not too much disease and crime in the shantytown you’re now forced to live in. (Really, we don’t care, just don’t bother us.)