prev <-> next
[2004-06-23 15:17:32] - "[7-28-00 1:45:00p] - I agree that we need environmental regulations but that's about it -paul" The truth comes out! Paul is a dirty commie! - pierce
[2004-06-23 15:15:09] - Paul: I know! Adrian, since no one ever responded to it (so it wouldn't mess up the continuity), I would be very grateful if you could find it in your heart to delete that post. - pierce
[2004-06-23 15:12:28] - Pierce: I'm not even sure what you were trying to say there. At the time I thought it was a quote or something. It was just so... odd. -Paul
[2004-06-23 15:11:20] - I even admit it within the same post. Why, oh why, didn't I hit alt-F4? - pierce
[2004-06-23 15:10:54] - Paul: but my second post is like ten billion times worse than your first post. - pierce
[2004-06-23 15:10:18] - Pierce: At least you don't have a stupid FIRST post like I do. -Paul
[2004-06-23 15:08:42] - Travis: I greatly regret my nerdy second post on the board. Anytime I think "hey, it'd be fun to go back to the beginning and see how our conversation progressed", I always get to that point and quit in disgust. - pierce
[2004-06-23 15:04:07] - dear god! i haven't listened to john henry in so long I can't remember what "subliminal" goes like! i used to listen to that CD constantly - vinnie
[2004-06-23 14:59:10] - travis: you must have missed my nostalgia a few months ago for the earliest posts. dr. disruption = best name ever - vinnie
[2004-06-23 14:51:32] - Travis: What are you doing checking out the first page for?
-Paul[2004-06-23 14:49:22] - man, have you guys ever gone back to the very first page in the previous entries? the conversation has really advanced since then - travis
[2004-06-23 14:39:39] - Vinnie: Thanks, I'll give it a try. -Darth Maul
[2004-06-23 14:39:17] - Pierce: I'm a little confused by that article. Who is exactly mad at who and for saying what? -paul
[2004-06-23 14:38:03] - maul: http://texturizer.net/firefox/tips.html#app_searchbarsize how to fix the search bar length. I couldn't get it to work but I'm also pretty dumb. tell me if you have any luck - vinnie
[2004-06-23 14:31:48] - http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/6/21/19280/4046 </asbestos> - pierce
[2004-06-23 14:09:46] - http://www.insidedenver.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_2969471,00.html C-word flak leads Hoffman to tears -Paul
[2004-06-23 14:00:11] - http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0614/p12s02-wmgn.html The new face of wealth wears lipstick -Paul
[2004-06-23 13:57:22] - http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/ts20040618.shtml Silencing whom? -Paul
[2004-06-23 13:55:30] - http://slate.msn.com/id/2102639/?GT1=3584 Can you really buy 2% milk and just add water to get skim milk? -Paul
[2004-06-23 13:51:57] - http://autos.msn.com/advice/article.aspx?contentid=2885&src=msn>1=3491 Toyota Echo one of the top 10 most fuel efficient cars. -Paul
[2004-06-23 13:44:22] - http://articles.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0CYZ/is_3_29/ai_90390642 Heterosexual males: a group forgotten by the profession of social work -Paul
[2004-06-23 13:33:27] - Mel: I've been following it a little bit. More than the general public, less than an astronomy fan.
-Paul[2004-06-23 13:29:01] - Paul: so have you been following that flight over in the Mojave desert by SpaceShipOne? The first privately funded space flight. -mel
[2004-06-23 13:12:43] - Mel: You're probably right. -Paul
[2004-06-23 13:09:36] - Paul: anyway this case seems like bribery. -mel
[2004-06-23 12:58:31] - Mel: I could go with your definition too.
-Paul[2004-06-23 12:32:25] - Paul: haha. good answer. ok see you after lunch. -mel
[2004-06-23 12:32:11] - Paul: If you try tp concvince someone about your point of view, or if you try to use your voting power to persuade them, to me that's lobbying. If you give the person monetary gifts when they are involved in legislation that directly affects you, to me that's bribery. -mel
[2004-06-23 12:32:06] - Lunch time for me. Be back in a bit. -Paul
[2004-06-23 12:30:40] - Mel: Bribery is succesful?
-Paul[2004-06-23 12:30:03] - Paul: what do you think the difference is between lobbying and bribery? -mel
[2004-06-23 12:25:00] - Mel: I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you because I think it's motivated by money too, but does that mean if you ever receive money from a lobbying group as a politician you should actually avoid doing things that benefit them for fear of being seen as bribed? -paul
[2004-06-23 12:22:54] - "Texas project sparked controversy when a Pennsylvania government employee revealed state officials with influence over the plan had received money and perks.." -mel
[2004-06-23 12:22:33] - Paul: maybe if the Texas program hadn't been found to be motivated by money. I don't think that its a conicindence. -mel
[2004-06-23 12:20:15] - Paul: It seems clearly motivated by profit to the pharmaceutical companies. which I assume did a good job with their lobbying. -mel
[2004-06-23 12:20:14] - Mel: So would there be a way for the government to try to help the mentally ill that you WOULDN'T think was all about the money? -paul
[2004-06-23 12:19:40] - http://voxday.blogspot.com/2004_06_01_voxday_archive.html#108799602706501805 I like the story in the third paragraph. -Paul
[2004-06-23 12:18:34] - Paul: yes I would think the same thing. -mel
[2004-06-23 12:17:27] - Mel: Oh, I meant why do you think it's all about the money? Would you think the same thing if Clinton or Gore had recommended it? You're welcome for the link. -Paul
[2004-06-23 12:15:26] - Paul: screening for every citizen is way more power than I thought that lobbying group had. -mel
[2004-06-23 12:14:53] - Paul: "sweeping mental health initiative that recommends screening for every citizen and promotes the use of expensive antidepressants and antipsychotic drugs" -mel
[2004-06-23 12:13:48] - Paul: Thanks for the marijuana link. The source is somewhat biased but points to a bunch of other references. I didn't know so many major studies had been done. -mel
[2004-06-23 12:10:01] - Mel: What makes you say that? -Paul
[2004-06-23 12:09:40] - mig: so the pharmaceutical lobby is even more powerful than I thought.
-mel[2004-06-23 12:08:55] - while increased screening "may seem defensible," it could also be seen as "fishing for customers." its all about the money... -mel
[2004-06-23 12:06:04] - Mig: What's ironic is that just today I started reading a book called The Bell Curve which talks a lot about eugenics in the introduction and I also read that article about the founder of Planned Parenthood.
-paul[2004-06-23 12:04:16] - http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39078 this is really fucking scary. - mig
[2004-06-23 11:59:27] - Mel: http://paranoia.lycaeum.org/marijuana/facts/mj-health-mythology.html Here is a biased source of info. -Paul
[2004-06-23 11:56:23] - Paul: some sort of comparsion about health risks (lung cancer, etc). -mel
[2004-06-23 11:55:39] - Paul: Have you seen any good studies that show that? That's what I've heard too and I'd like to have some sort of study to reference when people (who disagree) ask me. -mel
[2004-06-23 11:51:44] - Mel: Another good comparison is tobacco. It's a lot more dangerous than pot and yet it's a lot more legal. -Paul
[2004-06-23 11:51:29] - Mig: Mary Kate should smoke pot. Then she would eat. -mel
[2004-06-23 11:50:29] - Paul: hey cool. just a sec while I read through the link... -mel
[2004-06-23 11:48:13] - mig: yeah, well I'm starting to think that too. It really doesn't make sense for alcohol to be legal and for pot not to be. Pot has way more benefits and (I would argue) fewer side effects. Too bad the pharmacetical companies are so powerful.
-mel[2004-06-23 11:47:42] - Mel: It's also cool because they are often relevant to some issue that is currently being debated or whatnot. -Paul
[2004-06-23 11:47:07] - Mel: http://www.garymcleod.org/davy.htm Here is a story in that same vein. Not sure if it's true or not, but I like the moral behind it. -paul
[2004-06-23 11:45:52] - mel: well it's just becoming more and more obvious that keeping pot illegal is less and less about "protecting children and stupid people" and more about protected government granted monoplies (pharmacetical companies). - mig
[2004-06-23 11:44:17] - Paul: yes, I found the dailies to be really good. I will probably start reading them regularly. -mel
[2004-06-23 11:43:24] - Mel: Wow, I remember reading that one.
Yeah, their dailys are often the best stuff to read. It's short and to the point. Some of their stuff is entirely too long and involved. -Paul[2004-06-23 11:41:55] - Paul: oh I read some of those Cato articles. This one http://www.cato.org/dailys/11-06-98.html was a good one. It had some great points. One quote: "The problem with compassionate lawmaking isn't that compassion is bad. The problem is that legislation is not compassion. There is nothing compassionate about giving away other people's money." -mel
[2004-06-23 11:39:05] - Mel: Probably not. I remember seeing a special on TV about anorexia and there was this girl who was so skinny that I couldn't believe she was still alive. It literally looked like she had nothing between her skin and her bones. And she kept on going on and on about how fat she was (when she wasn't passed out from lack of nutrition).
-Paul[2004-06-23 11:35:55] - Paul: I think they look pretty much the same too. But I don't think Mary-kate is seeing reality anymorew when she looks at herself. -mel
[2004-06-23 11:33:58] - Mel: I get pretty cranky too, and headaches usually follow. I'm not sure if anorexics just don't get those same feelings or what. I hope she gets better too. I can't understand how she thinks she looks worse than Ashley, they look identical! -Paul
[2004-06-23 11:30:16] - Paul: Yes it is sad to hear. I get really cranky when I'm hungry and eventually desperate. I can't imagine how people can override those feelings. I hope she gets better, -mel
[2004-06-23 11:24:46] - Mel: That's sad to hear. I don't know if I'll ever understand people like that. I love eating too much.
-Paul[2004-06-23 11:20:29] - mig: (in response to earlier pot comment) no kidding, the more I learn about pot, the more I can't believe its not legal. It has a lot of serious medical benefits. -mel
[2004-06-23 11:16:06] - Paul: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/06/22/earlyshow/leisure/celebspot/main625389.shtml did you hear about Mary Kate? -mel
[2004-06-23 11:08:32] - Barging into somebody else's house and attacking him for abusing his child seems to be a somewhat different matter. -Paul
[2004-06-23 11:07:50] - Pierce: Actually, in my example of the guy coming in my house and kidnapping my wife, I WOULD be defending myself in the sense that he is also trespassing and (arguably) stealing.
-Paul[2004-06-23 11:06:23] - Pierce: I think so. -Paul
[2004-06-23 11:04:40] - Do you accept someone else's justification (and in this case, correctness) in using force on you in retaliation for your wrong decision? - pierce
[2004-06-23 11:04:38] - Pierce: Somebody else comes and kicks my ass?
-Paul[2004-06-23 11:04:21] - Pierce: Hmmm. I think I have no problem with your revised statement of what I said.
But I haven't thought it entirely through yet. -Paul[2004-06-23 11:04:06] - Paul: so where is the accountability for your having made a wrong, but possibly justified, decision? - pierce
[2004-06-23 11:02:40] - Pierce: Initiating force based on faulty information would be justified (depending on how you define justified) but it wouldn't be right. -Paul
[2004-06-23 11:01:39] - Paul: no, that's not what you just said. What you said was "leave everyone else alone and I leave you alone. You mess with anybody and I feel justified in messing with you." - pierce
[2004-06-23 11:01:00] - Vinnie: True. Going by that (probably more accurate) definition of force, though, it's all dependent on how willing the people are to obey the laws. There would be a helluva lot more force in our society if people were more rebellious. -Paul
[2004-06-23 11:00:58] - Paul: so what if the person who you observed using force was actually defending themselves? What if they were using force to protect a fourth party? Do you accept that a fifth party would be perfectly justified in using force on you by your own logic? - pierce
[2004-06-23 10:59:31] - Pierce: Basically, leave me alone and I leave you alone. If you mess with me then I feel justified in messing with you. -Paul
[2004-06-23 10:59:12] - Paul: Yeah, think of all the laws we have now. Now imagine that everyone you ever deal with has their own set of laws that they want you to obey. Imaging that even one hundredth of the people you meet are willing to use force to get you to do them. Don't you see that as both more complicated, and more forceful, than the current system? - pierce
[2004-06-23 10:58:57] - btw, laws aren't force. they are basically rules to heed to avoid having force thrust upon you. I think there would be more force in anarchy - vinnie
[2004-06-23 10:58:52] - Pierce: No, I don't think that's it. I think it's more that as soon as somebody violates my principle of not initiating force, then that somewhat frees me from initiating it in response. I still don't think it's right for me to go and beat up somebody just because I think they are ugly. -Paul
[2004-06-23 10:56:06] - Paul: so you're not opposed to imposing your judgements on others, even by force. But no one is allowed to do it on your behalf? Even if someone is doing it on your behalf in such a way that you sometimes disagree, but they fairly represent the interests of their citizens and they do it with a minimum of actual initiated force? - pierce
[2004-06-23 10:55:35] - Like, if I'm sitting at home and somebody walks into my house and grabs my wife and starts to drag her away kicking and screaming, I'll get up and try to stop them instead of just sitting there. -Paul
[2004-06-23 10:54:53] - Pienie: Somewhat, with the exception that they would have already initiated force so it's somewhat justified (I feel) to respond in kind. -Paul
[2004-06-23 10:53:45] - Pierce: I don't know. It's hard to measure something like 'force' the way we talk about it. I suspect that anarchy would have a lot less force, though. Just think about all the laws that EVERYBODY has to follow now. That's a lot of force. -Paul
[2004-06-23 10:52:26] - Pierce: Well, that goes back to the whole "how responsible are you for the actions of your government" debate. But I think the answer to your question is 'yes'. If I support a representative government that forces people to wear bicycle helmets or something, I think that's wrong. -Paul
[2004-06-23 10:52:19] - Paul: interesting... isn't that in stark contrast to what you just said about the cancer thing? Aren't you imposing your judgement on another to protect a third-party? - pierce
[2004-06-23 10:51:55] - paul: isn't that kind of like initiating force for other reasons though? you don't know whether your intervention will result in more good or less good - vinnie
[2004-06-23 10:51:14] - - pierce
[2004-06-23 10:51:11] - Paul: right, but do you or do you not concede that anarchy would have a greater total level of force, even if you're not participating in its execution whatsoever?
[2004-06-23 10:50:25] - I'm also not as passive as I made myself sound. If I saw somebody initiating unjust force against another person then I probably would have no qualms about initiating some force of my own against them. -Paul
[2004-06-23 10:49:36] - Pierce: I think so. However, I would be quite unhappy with the people who are forcing others to do stuff and I would in no way be supporting what others would do in an anarchy (like slavery or whatnot). -Paul
[2004-06-23 10:48:51] - Whereas if you supported any system of government, even a representative one, you would be using force if only a tiny bit? - pierce
[2004-06-23 10:47:29] - Paul: okay, I think I get it. So since you can't violate your principles and force people to do stuff, you'd prefer to advocate a society in which there was a greater cumulative level of people being forced to do something, as long as you didn't have to be the one forcing them? (not implying that that's right or wrong, just clarifying) - pierce
[2004-06-23 10:46:17] - That's the way I think. -Paul
[2004-06-23 10:45:58] - If God personally came before me and said that he would make everybody on Earth as happy as they could be forever as long as I gave him a human sacrifice every week I would probably say "no thanks". -Paul
[2004-06-23 10:43:43] - Pierce: Oh, this is more a statement of my own beliefs, not necessarily how anarchists would act. I'm just saying that even if you are right and that representative democracy ends up making the most people happy, I probably still wouldn't support it because I can't support the principle of forcing people to do stuff. -paul
[2004-06-23 10:42:25] - Whenever I get asked these questions, I almost always come down on the side of keeping my principles. Part of it is because it's easier that way. I don't have to make decisions about whether it's worth murdering somebody to save two lives. Or torturing somebody to save one life. Or stealing $5 from somebody to save another person $6. -paul
[2004-06-23 10:41:53] - Paul: I guess I'm curious as to how you're drawing the connection here. How are such judgements the exclusive domain of a form of government versus the lack thereof? Would anarchists not ever have to put their principles before the greater good, or vice versa? - pierce
[2004-06-23 10:40:34] - It's like torture. Would you torture somebody in order to get information that could save hundreds or thousands of lives? -Paul
[2004-06-23 10:39:45] - Pierce: It's a good episode because it doesn't really lean either way as to whether it was the right thing to do or not. Sisko tries to rationalize that what happened will save billions of lives but he still has trouble with the fact that he did something wrong. -paul
[2004-06-23 10:38:28] - Pierce: Assuming you think murder is wrong, would you murder somebody in order to do the greater good. There was a DS9 episode where Sisko basically gets involved in the murder of a Romulan politician in order to get the Romulans involved in the war on the Federation's side and possible help win the war. -paul
[2004-06-23 10:37:14] - Pierce: True. But I think it's much more likely (and also to greater degrees) that power is more concentrated in societies with strong governments than in anarchy. -Paul
[2004-06-23 10:36:06] - Pierce: I always answer the question "no" because I like to think I put my principes ahead of the greater good. So even if somehow forcing a government on people is for the greater good, I can't bring myself to support a system which initiates force against others. -Paul
[2004-06-23 10:35:52] - Paul: what principle in particular? - pierce
[2004-06-23 10:35:19] - Paul: in anarchy, a few people very well could control the fates of millions (unless you're arguing that development of things like nuclear weapons would be impossible in an anarchist society), but those who possessed them would not even have the restrictions upon their use as we do now. - pierce
[2004-06-23 10:34:53] - Pierce: The reason I ask is because the question is basically asking if you would sacrifice your principles in order to do the greater good. -Paul
[2004-06-23 10:32:58] - Paul: but a more important question is, would I take one person's property to cure all cancer in the world? Yes. Do I think it's right? Still probably no. Do I think it's least wrong? Definitely yes. - pierce
[2004-06-23 10:32:03] - Paul: would I do it? I'd have to say probably (barring my own personal biases, like if it's someone I know and/or care about). Do I think it's right? No. Do I think it's the least wrong thing to do? I'm inclined to say yes. - pierce
[2004-06-23 10:32:03] - I see corruption as possible more prevalent, but less of a problem in anarchy because you don't have the same situation where a few people control the fates of millions as much. -Paul
[2004-06-23 10:31:02] - Pierce: I think of corruption as a bigger problem when you have power concentrated in few people. When a handful of people control the fate of millions, corruption is a huge problem. -Paul
[2004-06-23 10:28:48] - Pierce: If you could cure all cancer in the world by killing one person. Would you do it? Do you think it's right? -Paul
[2004-06-23 10:28:34] - Paul: and in fact, that is the very argument that I have made. However, as far as I understand it, that is not your opinion. In what way do you believe that anarchy is no more corrupt than representative government? - pierce
[2004-06-23 10:25:59] - Pierce: It depends on what you consider corrupt. The argument could be made that anarchy is a very corrupt system. -Paul
[2004-06-23 10:23:50] - Paul: by the same token, I'm "trying to figure out what you think about stuff". Specifically (since it's a point you've supported in the past), what makes you believe that anarchy would be no more corrupt than uor current system? - pierce
[2004-06-23 10:21:57] - Pierce: But, I wasn't really advocating anything.
At this point, I was just trying to figure out what you thought about stuff. Sure, I tend to prefer less government than big government but that seems seperate from this conversation somehow. -Paul[2004-06-23 10:21:22] - My argument has never been that we live in a perfect system, but simply that our current system is the best practical system that we know of. - pierce
[2004-06-23 10:20:41] - Paul: so, are you saying we should live in a pure democracy? Or are you saying we should eliminate all government? Because if your argument is just "Representative democracy has some problems" then you're not saying anything we don't already know. - pierce
[2004-06-23 10:19:25] - Paul: I may have brought it up, but if you're advocating that representative democracy should be eliminated, you need to replace it with something (or actively replace it with nothing) and defend that. - pierce
[2004-06-23 10:18:40] - Pierce: That was a long time ago, in response to something you said about anarchy. What exactly does it have to do with this discussion (or are we moving on)? -Paul
[2004-06-23 10:18:30] - Paul: that last comment I quoted is the most important, because you're claiming (if I understand you correctly) that anarchy has less, or no more, corruption than representative democracy. So you were, at a point in this conversation, defending anarchy. - pierce
[2004-06-23 10:17:37] - Paul: and most importantly, "You're right. I didn't. Because it doesn't prevent individuals from forcing their opinion on others any more than our current system does. -Paul" - pierce
[2004-06-23 10:17:03] - Paul: "Besides, you're saying people CAN impose their will on you in anarchy. With government, it DOES with 100% certainty. -Paul" - pierce
[2004-06-23 10:16:49] - Paul: "But the difference is that government tends to always make it the minority (people who are against a law) versus the full might of the majority (everybody else) and that's an unwinable situation. In anarchy, it's much easier to fight back. -Paul" - pierce
[2004-06-23 10:14:34] - Pierce: So you think that a representative democracy is a better system of government than you being an immortal, invincible dictator? -Paul
[2004-06-23 10:13:21] - Pierce: No, that was serious. You started bringing anarchy into this discussion and I was wondering where that was coming from since I hadn't mentioned it at all here. -paul
[2004-06-23 10:12:30] - Paul: do I think that would be the best system for my personal, material gain? yes. Do I think that would be the best, least corrupt system of government? No. - pierce
[2004-06-23 10:11:52] - Paul: yes, the statement "When did I ever say anything about anarchy?". - pierce
[2004-06-23 10:10:37] - Pierce: Yes. You are basically an invincible, immortal dictator. -Paul
[2004-06-23 10:09:41] - Pierce: Which joke with the tonguey face? The statement I just made? -Paul
[2004-06-23 10:09:08] - Paul: me individually? and in such a way that I could never be removed from power? - pierce
[2004-06-23 10:08:48] - Paul: I didn't understand the point of your (joke?) with the tonguey face. - pierce
[2004-06-23 10:08:01] - Pierce: If you could live forever and be given total control over the government of a country. Do you think that would be the best system possible? -Paul
[2004-06-23 10:07:04] - Pierce: When did I ever say anything about anarchy?
-Paul[2004-06-23 10:06:35] - aaron: I still don't understand why you can be against one but not the other, but I can understand why somebody might think one was worse than the other. -Paul
[2004-06-23 10:06:12] - Paul: I'm saying that it's better to give indirect control, with safety nets and protections of the ideas of a free society, than direct control with no such protections. - pierce
[2004-06-23 10:05:13] - *** aaron appends his name to the end of his previous post
[2004-06-23 10:05:10] - And as always, I return to why you think anarchy is greater-than-or-equal-to our current system. In what way is someone with more power in an anarchist system going to be less corrupt, or no more corrupt than our current representatives? - pierce
[2004-06-23 10:04:36] - paul: Do you understand now?
[2004-06-23 10:04:33] - Pierce: Well, regardless of everything else. It sounds like the important point is that you believe that people are generally unable to govern themselves, right? That we can't let people have the control over making laws? -Paul
[2004-06-23 10:03:40] - Aaron: Right, that's another way of putting it. -Paul
[2004-06-23 10:03:13] - Paul: I'm not saying representative democracy is completely free of corruption. I'm saying our current system has an unnecessarily high level of it, due to some poor implementation choices. - pierce
[2004-06-23 10:01:59] - paul: The disagreement was because you couldn't understand how a person could be against one and not the other. - aaron
[2004-06-23 10:01:50] - Pierce: I don't think corruption is a flaw in a particular implementation of representative democracy so much as it's a flaw inherent in representative democracy. When you concentrate power among fewer people, the chance of corruption naturally would seem to rise. -Paul
[2004-06-23 10:00:54] - Paul: correct, on the latter option. - pierce
[2004-06-23 10:00:23] - I think it's also important to distinguish "incorrect" votes as a result of incompetance from "incorrect" votes as a result of corruption (even "low-level" corruption like the influence of lobbyists and PR firms). There are particular flaws with our current implementation of representative democracy that do not invalidate the idea. - pierce
[2004-06-23 09:58:33] - Pierce: Which means either a higher percentage of competant people run for office OR the general population elects a higher percentage of "correct" people than they would "correctly" vote for a bill, right? -Paul
[2004-06-23 09:57:42] - Aaron: Well, I don't necessarily think that one is worse than the other but I thought the disagreement was because you thought one was acceptable and the other wasn't. -Paul
[2004-06-23 09:57:16] - Paul: I'd say a higher percentage of competant people win office than the general population. - pierce
[2004-06-23 09:56:36] - Mig: I disagree. There are several high-profile examples of "incorrect" votes by representative legislators, but I never said they'd have a perfect record. But if you look at the entirety of their voting records I believe they make the "correct" decision more often than popular opinion would. - pierce
[2004-06-23 09:56:16] - paul: If you already understood that one was worse than the other, then I don't think we should be "arguing" - aaron
[2004-06-23 09:55:57] - paul: Well obviously everybody in the universe should be against both kinds of random voting... I don't think anybody would say random voting was a good idea. Was that what you were asking? I must have misunderstood you. I thought you were trying to say that they were both equally irresponsible... - aaron
[2004-06-23 09:55:41] - Pierce: So you're assuming that a higher percentage of competant people run for office than the general population? -Paul
[2004-06-23 09:54:58] - Pierce: So you think people are better judges of other people than they are of law, basically? -Paul
[2004-06-23 09:54:46] - Paul: they aren't more likely to vote correctly for a candidate. But a candidate considered capable enough to hold office is more likely to vote correctly on individual issues. - pierce
[2004-06-23 09:54:22] - paul: and if you are going by the congressmen that get elected, it doesn't seem they vote any more "correctly" than if they voted for legislation directly. - mig
[2004-06-23 09:53:17] - Paul: No, because people are much less likely to be able to form a complete, informed opinion on one issue that is in keeping with their ideals of a free society, than they are to understand the general merits of a human candidate. - pierce
[2004-06-23 09:52:16] - Pierce: It seems strange to imply that people are more likely to vote "correctly" for candidates than they are for legislation. -Paul
[2004-06-23 09:51:55] - Thus, he or she is more likely to recognize the inconsistency of a personal opinion that is in conflict with the ideal of a free society. Furthermore, a limited number of representatives can be provided advisors to "fill in the gaps" of the representative's understanding of law. - pierce
[2004-06-23 09:51:45] - Pierce: But couldn't you say the same thing about any law that is passed (any law that is able to garner enough support to get passed is likely to be somewhat correct)? -Paul
[2004-06-23 09:50:41] - Paul: when you vote "incorrectly" for a candidate, you are not actually changing the law. Any candidate who is able to garner enough support to win office is likely to have some qualification for the job. He or she is more likely to be educated, and/or knowledgable about the "big picture" of law. - pierce
[2004-06-23 09:49:10] - Aaron: Right, I can understand being less tolerant about one than another but I think they are fundamentally the same (if you are against one, you should be against the other). -Paul
[2004-06-23 09:48:24] - Pierce: Sure, go ahead. -Paul
[2004-06-23 09:48:06] - Pierce: Ok, I understand what you're saying now. But I have a new question. If it's a good idea to have a Representative Democracy (in order to increase the correctness of legislation passed, I assume), then wouldn't it also be a good idea to have some sort of test that would need to be passed for voters? -paul
[2004-06-23 09:47:04] - Paul: now, do you mind if I clarify why I consider the former to be better than the latter, despite having the same answer? - pierce
[2004-06-23 09:46:47] - paul: I'm just saying I can understand being less tolerant of ignorant voting on issues versus ignorant voting on candidates. I'm not sure if i share the viewpoint or not but I can see how the viewpoint is logical. - aaron
[2004-06-23 09:45:36] - Paul: same answer, minus the parenthetical of my previous statement. - pierce
[2004-06-23 09:44:37] - Pierce: True or False? An ignorant vote for a bill (basically a coin flip type vote) is just as valid as a vote made based on extensive research about the bill. Is the answer different if 'valid' is replaced by 'correct'? -paul
[2004-06-23 09:43:36] - Pierce: Ok, that's possibly the misunderstanding right there. One more question should do it. -Paul
[2004-06-23 09:42:28] - Paul: valid, or correct? It is just as valid, but less likely to be correct. "Correctness" is defined as the extent to which the vote (and by extension, the policies of the candidate) support the ideals of the voter. - pierce
[2004-06-23 09:40:59] - Pierce: True or False. An ignorant vote for a candidate (basically a coin flip type vote) for political office is just as valid as a vote made based on extensive research into each candidate's positions on the issues. -Paul
[2004-06-23 09:38:20] - Paul: sure. - pierce
[2004-06-23 09:38:09] - For example, a lot of people support the idea of free speech, but don't realize that that freedom includes the protection of speech that they personally dislike. Moreover, they are individually likely to vote (issue-wise) their personal opinion rather than in support of the idea. - pierce
[2004-06-23 09:36:48] - Pierce: Ok, I think I understand what you're saying, but I think it's still contrary to what you said before. Can I ask you a few short questions to see if I have all my facts right? -Paul
[2004-06-23 09:36:33] - Paul: no vote is "wrong", but a lot of people wouldn't realize that their opinion on an issue and their support of the ideals of a free society are in conflict. - pierce
[2004-06-23 09:35:51] - Aaron: So you're saying that it's ok for people to vote randomly for candidates but not for legislation because the latter is more dangerous than the former? -Paul
[2004-06-23 09:35:41] - Paul: there are ways of voting on individual issues that are contrary to the idea of a free society (which, as an idea, I am assuming is self-evidently good... argue with me on that point if you must). Representatives have a greater chance of understanding the behaviors of government that do and do not run contrary to that idea. - pierce
[2004-06-23 09:30:02] - Pierce: In other words, it sounds like you are saying that there is a "wrong" way for people to vote. Is that what you're saying? -Paul
[2004-06-23 09:29:29] - Pierce: Ok, that's where I have a problem. It sounds like you are saying that we can't let people vote directly on issues because they might vote in a way you disagree with (against a free society). -Paul
[2004-06-23 09:28:47] - http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=6738 A biased article and not sure how accurate, but it has interesting claims about the founder of Planned Parenthood. -Paul
[2004-06-23 09:27:49] - Paul: whereas with actual democracy, you have 250,000,000 legislators who are each likely to be uninformed on the topics that come up. But this lack of knowledge of a topic would not lessen their impact as a legislator. Therefore, we'd be much more susceptable to popular opinions which run contrary to the idea of a free society. - pierce
[2004-06-23 09:27:45] - Aaron: But voters can't be held responsible? -Paul
[2004-06-23 09:27:18] - Aaron: Appearantly not.
-Paul[2004-06-23 09:27:00] - paul: So yes, it's ok - aaron
[2004-06-23 09:26:49] - paul: I guess that's a valid viewpoint to hold. Ignorant voting for legislation can be far more harmful than ignorant voting for candidates, because candidates can be held responsible for their irresponsibility.... - aaron
[2004-06-23 09:26:32] - Pierce: Ok, but can you at least see my confusion? It seems to me that you were a great believer in the ideal that all votes are equal (no matter how educated or ignorant) before, but now you're saying that educated votes are better? -Paul
[2004-06-23 09:25:38] - paul: I don't understand what you mean by your "free to vote" statement... Do you understand what I'm saying about the difference between stupidly/randomly voting directly and stupidly/randomly electing people? - aaron
[2004-06-23 09:25:29] - Aaron: I'm not sure if I agree, but I think that's a slightly different point. Mainly, I'm asking if it's ok to condemn ignorant voting for legislation while saying ignorant voting for candidates is ok. -Paul
[2004-06-23 09:24:35] - Paul: representative democracy lessens the impact of those who don't understand the proper functions of government. One can make an uneducated vote for a candidate, but only the candidates with some level of qualification to be a government representative would have the potential to actually win. - pierce
[2004-06-23 09:24:00] - paul: I'll say the result would almost definitely be better if people voted for random candidates, versus if everybody just directly voted randomly on every issue - aaron
[2004-06-23 09:22:19] - Aaron: You're still free to vote either way, I would think. -Paul
[2004-06-23 09:21:54] - Does anybody else have a problem with labeling Moore's films as documentaries? -Paul
[2004-06-23 09:21:53] - paul: If the candidate screws up big time, then I'll hopefully be smart enough not to re-elect that candidate. But if i'm just voting directly on an issue, and if I mess up, then I'm still free to vote. That's what i perceive as the main difference - aaron
[2004-06-23 09:19:53] - And IF that is true, then I am saying that the same applies to when you vote on legislation. -Paul
[2004-06-23 09:19:34] - I believe, and I could be wrong, that Pierce's point before was that an educated vote was no better or worse than an uneducated vote when it came to voting for representatives. -Paul
[2004-06-23 09:18:53] - Aaron: I'm saying that assume you are completely ignorant of the views of candidates running for office and also ignorant of whatever bills are up for vote. Is it valid (or invalid) to vote for the candidate? Or about the legislation? -Paul
[2004-06-23 09:17:42] - It sounds like you two are saying the same thing. -paul
[2004-06-23 09:16:40] - mig: I thought what he was saying, is that there's no difference between choosing a random candidate, and voting a random way on a given issue - aaron
[2004-06-23 09:12:56] - aaron: i think what's he's saying is that if it's perfectly ok for someone to vote without knowing anything about any of the candidates and just making a random decision, why is it then not ok for congressmen to do the exact same thing when it comes to voting on bills. - mig
[2004-06-23 09:11:20] - paul: Are you asking what's the difference between me voting directly on a proposition I know nothing about, versus electing a person whom I believe shares my political views, to decide on the propisition for me? - aaron
[2004-06-23 09:10:30] - Mig: Fights to the death? -Paul
[2004-06-23 09:08:55] - paul: maybe we should go back to the old way of selecting senators... - mig
[2004-06-23 09:03:36] - is it really all that necessary to sooth animals before turning them into food? Granted maybe there should try less painful ways of killing them but this is going a bit too far. - mig
[2004-06-23 08:54:58] - http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_996561.html Pigs soothed before slaughter -Paul
[2004-06-23 08:53:35] - Aaron: But in boils down to the same thing in a true democracy. Besides, does it make a difference? If voting for a candidate without any knowledge of the people involved is perfectly valid, why isn't it also perfectly valid to vote for legislation without any knowledge of the bills involved? -Paul
[2004-06-23 08:51:47] - http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/movies/apmovies_story.asp?category=1402&slug=Film%20Fahrenheit%209%2F11%20Rating Board upholds R rating for 'Fahrenheit' -Paul
[2004-06-23 08:51:23] - paul: I don't think pierce was saying that some people weren't educated to vote properly, i think he was saying some people weren't educated enough to legislate - aaron
[2004-06-23 08:48:47] - Mel: I understand and on some level I agree. I'm just thinking back to a time when I made the same comment about some people not being educated enough to vote properly and Pierce made the point that it's a perfectly valid way of voting (ignorantly) and I shouldn't be saying my way (educated) is any better. -Paul
[2004-06-23 08:28:15] - http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=1826548 T-Mac on the Pacers would've been awesome. -Paul
[2004-06-23 08:27:39] - Besides, you're saying people CAN impose their will on you in anarchy. With government, it DOES with 100% certainty. -Paul
[2004-06-23 08:26:52] - Pierce: But the difference is that government tends to always make it the minority (people who are against a law) versus the full might of the majority (everybody else) and that's an unwinable situation. In anarchy, it's much easier to fight back. -Paul
[2004-06-23 08:24:02] - Pierce: It seems to me, and I could be wrong since I fully admit I don't understand what you're saying, but it sounds like you're saying that we need Representative Democracy because otherwise people might make the 'wrong' decision. Where 'wrong' means you don't agree with it. -Paul
[2004-06-23 00:46:19] - My contention is that anarchy can work in theory, but not in practice. And in order to be theoretically true, it requires every hypothetical person to both practice responsible decision-making and to believe (and practice) the ideals of anarchy. - pierce
[2004-06-23 00:43:26] - And you always point out how dumb "self-imposed limitations" are, but the "self" in this case is a complex entity (the rest of the government), which (again) is in turn only protected by the common support of the people and is more likely to waste time arguing than to agree to some evil, oppressive conspiracy. - pierce
[2004-06-23 00:41:12] - Paul: what it boils down to is: Anarchy - anyone with more might can impose his or her or their will upon you. Our current system - a few people are appointed to wield that same power, but they are limited by the common support of the people over whom they rule and by self-imposed limitations. - pierce
[2004-06-23 00:23:19] - It does nothing but discourage voting participation, and marginalize third parties. - pierce
[2004-06-23 00:21:39] - Mel: I'm not sure whether I support or oppose the idea of an electoral college in general, but I definitely oppose the winner-take-all policy of the states. It makes no sense for a state with 48% Republicans and 47% Democrats to vote entirely Republican. - pierce
[2004-06-23 00:19:16] - Mel: the electoral process ostensibly serves the same purposes as having both a senate (in which all states are equal) and a house (in which all states are as powerful as their raw population). It keeps less populated states from being trampled on by more populated ones. - pierce
[2004-06-23 00:17:44] - Under an anarchist system, there can be no penalty for crimes beyond that imposed by vigilantes, who would essentially serve the same purposes as the rule of law in our system but without that pesky "accountability" getting in the way. - pierce
[2004-06-23 00:15:48] - Paul: in our current system, Person A is dissuaded from murdering Person B because of the enforcement of laws. Even though murder isn't always prevented, the potential of punishment encourages Person A to seek alternative means towards whatever goal was intended by the murder. - pierce
[2004-06-23 00:10:36] - Paul: Moreover, there are opinions on the proper behavior of a government which, while popular, are contrary to a free society. Representative democracy, in which the representatives understand the rules imposed on them by things like the constitution, works to limit the expansion of government beyond its responsibilities. - pierce
[2004-06-23 00:06:41] - Paul: you have to realize there's a difference between people being able to form their own (valid, even if I disagree) opinions, and people being willing or practically able to do so. - pierce
[2004-06-22 20:27:20] - http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,121945,00.html note how there is absolutely no criticism of republican runaway pork spending. another shining moment of the fair and balanced foxnews. - mig
[2004-06-22 20:16:56] - http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,117541,00.html oh you lovable pot, what can't you do? - mig
[2004-06-22 20:15:35] - http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0614/p12s01-legn.html say no to these drugs and you'll be carted off to jail for child abuse. - mig
[2004-06-22 18:37:12] - *** mel leaves
[2004-06-22 18:36:57] - *** mel realizes all east coast people are gone
[2004-06-22 18:23:35] - Paul: I don't see why why we still use the electoral college though. -mel
[2004-06-22 18:23:15] - Paul: I don't think Pierce was implying people aren't smart enough. They just don't have enough time to be educating themselves about every single issue. -mel
[2004-06-22 18:21:22] - vinnie: yes, if you find out about the google toolbar, let me know. It is definitely too small. -mel
[2004-06-22 18:20:56] - Paul: are you using firefox too? -mel
[2004-06-22 18:20:42] - *** mel finally back from lunch and meetings
[2004-06-22 17:47:08] - http://www.gothamcomics.com/spiderman_india/ do we really need to localize superheros like this? granted it could be cool - travis
[2004-06-22 17:38:17] - Travis: Look at what you're responsible for. -Paul
[2004-06-22 17:35:44] - http://feeds.bignewsnetwork.com/redir.php?jid=6fab1c8a7b538eb8&cat=c08dd24cec417021 they're starting to get a nice collection of heads - travis
[2004-06-22 17:25:31] - http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/040622 NBA Ratings -Paul
[2004-06-22 16:51:38] - Pierce: And are you implying that some people aren't smart enough to vote on the issues? -Paul
[2004-06-22 16:51:08] - Pierce: You're right. I didn't. Because it doesn't prevent individuals from forcing their opinion on others any more than our current system does. -Paul
[2004-06-22 16:40:19] - Representative democracy allows democratic solutions to problems but only a few people in very specialized positions need to understand that banning Hustler is outside the proper role of government. - pierce
[2004-06-22 16:39:16] - Paul; you've still never answered the question of how an anarchist society prevents individuals from forcing their opinions on others anyway. And representative democracy because not every member of a society wants or needs to understand the complexities of the limitations of government. - pierce
[2004-06-22 16:18:11] - Pierce: And as I so frequently argue, we can have a functioning society without a government. Actually, I do have a question for you. Why a representative democracy and not a pure democracy? -Paul
[2004-06-22 16:12:41] - Paul: as I so frequently argue, ideally it'd be great if everyone would voluntarily pay to support the services that are necessary to a functioning society. But that's just not the case and a representative democracy seems to empirically be the best system for providing those services while minimizing governmental abuse. - pierce
[2004-06-22 16:07:45] - Vinnie: Let me know if you find out how to change the size of the google bar in Firefox, I'm interested too. -Paul
[2004-06-22 16:06:29] - Sweet. -Paul
[2004-06-22 16:06:21] - *** Paul gives it another try
[2004-06-22 16:04:25] - replace "paul" with "me" in your post, THEN stick your name at the end of it - vinnie
[2004-06-22 16:04:02] - oh oops - vinnie
[2004-06-22 16:03:53] - stick your name at the end of it - vinnie
[2004-06-22 16:03:32] - Hmmmm, somebody care to explain to me? -Paul
prev <-> next