The News Thread

[Einherjar86]

Or they're willing to accept the intellectual difference but are none-the-less tired of the elitism itself. America, from an outsider's perspective, seems to have a problem with middle America, the working class and the fly-over states being pissed on by everybody else for no apparent reason.

Ha, well, there definitely are reasons (personal and social, for me at least). That doesn't mean their experiences don't matter, but I've had to deal with some shockingly misogynist, racist, and generally dismissive language among my extended family (much of which I recall happening before I was old enough to properly address it)

And please bear in mind that my family is not poor, generally speaking. They're the products of Middle-American, post-WWII exceptionalist sentiment. And some of them were just pissed that a black guy won the 2008 election.

Now that's personal and anecdotal, so I'm not making the snap judgment that all Middle Americans are like that; my impression of that demographic stems from conversations, experiences, and research beyond that. And I don't think it's very controversial to suggest that the intolerance of middle-class America isn't purely some recent symptom of feeling disowned by the coastal elites. It's a product of deep-seated values that go back to the years after World War II.

This country has made impressive strides when it comes to black rights, gay rights, women's rights, etc.; but those successes have also left a lot of pissed off people, and that resentment has been handed down the generations.

Well there are limits to the ability to generalize from personal and/or immediate experience. But the reverse is true as well: it is difficult to be accurately specific from generalities. I would argue that when a trucker in Kentucky and some NYT subscriber in Oregon disagree with each other about any number of issues, they are both merely working from personal experience (and/or personal inclinations). The difference is that the Oregonite is paying someone in another city to tell them they are right, while the trucker listens to AM radio for free.

Sure, it goes both ways. And in my case, theoretical knowledge and study counts as experience, which is difficult and something I grapple with.

Freedom of association means not presuming to tell people where they must enfranchise.

I don't think my assumptions about enfranchisement are that controversial, and I do think that many people behave in ways that are antithetical to their best interests (and I'm absolutely sure that you'd agree).

I think there is merit to instituting policies that assist poor families, even if they don't want to be given handouts. Maybe they don't want handouts, but they're also simply not motivated to acquire what they need to support themselves or their families. In a case like that, I have to think that instituting policies to help them supersedes their personal feelings/freedoms on the matter.

 

[Dak]

I don't think my assumptions about enfranchisement are that controversial, and I do think that many people behave in ways that are antithetical to their best interests (and I'm absolutely sure that you'd agree).

We all have different conceptualizations of what "best interests" are though, as the rest of your post shows.

I think there is merit to instituting policies that assist poor families, even if they don't want to be given handouts. Maybe they don't want handouts, but they're also simply not motivated to acquire what they need to support themselves or their families.

Hunger is a powerful motivator.

In a case like that, I have to think that instituting policies to help them supersedes their personal feelings/freedoms on the matter.

"Instituting polices" is a nice washing of "forcibly extracting funds from one person for the benefit of another". Assuming you will not ever be amongst those who would benefit from such policies, one might suggest being in favor of such a policy is behaving in a way that is antithetical to your best interests.

 

[Einherjar86]

"Instituting polices" is a nice washing of "forcibly extracting funds from one person for the benefit of another". Assuming you will not ever be amongst those who would benefit from such policies, one might suggest being in favor of such a policy is behaving in a way that is antithetical to your best interests.

I don't need the financial support that some do. In fact, I can afford to cough up a little extra to those policies that "forcibly extract" my funds, and I'm happy to do so since it will hopefully allow me to avoid having to cough up more further on down the line. It's not an optimal solution--maybe even not a solution--but it helps, and it's manageable.

I can't believe we're still whipping out the libertarian language like "forcibly extracting funds from one person." You'll never change your mind because you can't conceive of taxation being anything other than theft; but your perception isn't the gospel truth, and neither is mine. Stop rehashing that interpretation, all it does it make me roll my eyes.

 

[Dak]

I don't need the financial support that some do. In fact, I can afford to cough up a little extra to those policies that "forcibly extract" my funds, and I'm happy to do so since it will hopefully allow me to avoid having to cough up more further on down the line. It's not an optimal solution--maybe even not a solution--but it helps, and it's manageable.

I can't believe we're still whipping out the libertarian language like "forcibly extracting funds from one person." You'll never change your mind because you can't conceive of taxation being anything other than theft; but your perception isn't the gospel truth, and neither is mine. Stop rehashing that interpretation, all it does it make me roll my eyes.

Why must it be policy rather than your happy parting in the form of a donation? I'm all about prevention, but the failure of imagination informing "policy" also causes some eye-rolling on my end. Policy proposals can mostly be divided into two categories: cash transfers and banning stuff. Much academic, many elite.

I think it's important to remember what taxation is and my description isn't only "libertarian language". Whether or not you want to call it "theft", it is literally a forcible extraction of funds. Don't pay "voluntarily" pay taxes and you will quickly be forced to do so - which means it is never voluntary since you don't really have an alternative. A perspective of taxes as a necessary evil rather than a panacea for budget and social ills can help keep a lid on legislative overreach.

 

[Einherjar86]

Just reminding me, yes?

Looking at things in terms of voluntarism recasts social complexity as an individualist binary that is too simple to explain how organized societies actually work. The absence of all taxation and the absolute redistribution of wealth are both fantasies that have no practical application. I don't think taxation is a necessary evil, a practical institution that annoys individuals because (to use your parlance) "muh creature comforts."

 

[Dak]

Just reminding me, yes?

Looking at things in terms of voluntarism recasts social complexity as an individualist binary that is too simple to explain how organized societies actually work. The absence of all taxation and the absolute redistribution of wealth are both fantasies that have no practical application. I don't think taxation is a necessary evil, a practical institution that annoys individuals because (to use your parlance) "muh creature comforts."

But the necessity of cash transfers are often invoked because someone lacks some supposedly essential "creature comfort"! Why is one person due creature comforts because they didn't earn them? Pure voluntarism runs into some problems with free riders, the commons, and externalities. But taxation is not a magical fix for these problems (absent a flat tax you could argue it enshrines free riding and the commons problem). Of course this is talking about income or property taxes; all taxes are not created equal. Although it's utility may be dwindling due to advances in MPG and alternative fuels, gas taxes to pay for road use attempted to minimize free riders/commons problems.

 

[Einherjar86]

No, it's not a magical fix. I already said it may not even be a solution. But you jump to the conclusion that people who benefit from tax policies didn't "earn" the creature comforts, when in fact the majority of those people still aren't enjoying creature comforts. They're enjoying necessities like eating and rent.

I know you'll refer to stories of people using welfare checks to buy iPhones, but that's not a majority of welfare recipients. It's just a stereotypical perception of them because some definitely do abuse the welfare system.

 

[Dak]

No, it's not a magical fix. I already said it may not even be a solution. But you jump to the conclusion that people who benefit from tax policies didn't "earn" the creature comforts, when in fact the majority of those people still aren't enjoying creature comforts. They're enjoying necessities like eating and rent.

I imagine that, based on differences in overall cost-of-living, the sorts of poor you might observe directly or indirectly in the hyperurban areas of the Northeast look quite differently than the poor across most of the US. One doesn't even need to be "poor" to have difficulties with basic living expenses in a state like Massachusetts. In a mostly poor, mostly rural area like where I live, the poor have no problem eating steak, paying for expensive phone/tv packages, and buying new smartphones (or supporting "Rent-A-Rim" businesses).

It's not uncommon to hear persons talk about how they become anti-food stamps when they saw what people were buying with their EBT cards (expensive meats/seafood, namebrand junk food) while jabbering away on an IPhone. Although smartphones didn't exist at the time, I saw the food thing during the brief time I bagged groceries at 16, and remember loading this expensive food into relatively new cars (certainly nicer than anything my family ever owned). Not only that, I was around when the EBT system was having difficulies, and the persons inconvenienced in their receiving free food were incredibly rude about having to wait.

 

[CiG]

Paying my taxes always reminds me of the consensual relationships I've had in the past.

 

[Dak]

http://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2461&context=lawreview

Relevant to conversations about "best interests". Can scroll down to section 5, "The Paternalist's Dilemma".

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Daily reminder that pretty much no one starved even during the Great Depression. If welfare was just a matter of food and rent you'd be able to cut welfare spending into probably a tenth of what it is today. Starvation does not and pretty much cannot exist in capitalist nations without extreme extenuating circumstances (e.g. mentally ill/abusive parents).

 

[rms]

I kind of hate surveys but I think this article is worth reading / #'s worth seeing

https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...eek-at-new-survey-data-on-free-speech/542028/

i'm a dummy

 

[Einherjar86]

Daily reminder that pretty much no one starved even during the Great Depression.

Of course, social improvements and government policies certainly had something to do with this, yes? Better health care, sanitation, the New Deal...?

 

[Dak]

Of course, social improvements and government policies certainly had something to do with this, yes? Better health care, sanitation, the New Deal...?

Ah yes, the New Deal. Not only was this 4 years after the beginning of TGD, it involved a lot of work-for-money projects which provided for the common good rather than simple cash transfers.

https://www.britannica.com/event/New-Deal

Such agencies as the Works Progress Administration (WPA) and the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) were established to dispense emergency and short-term governmental aid and to provide temporary jobs, employment on construction projects, and youth work in the national forests. Before 1935 the New Deal focused on revitalizing the country’s stricken business and agricultural communities.

I'm all for workfare. Shitloads of potholes and crumbling bridges need fixing. Working with hotmix or portland cement is learn-able even by persons with ~85IQ almost immediately.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Of course, social improvements and government policies certainly had something to do with this, yes? Better health care, sanitation, the New Deal...?

What Dak said above, but you can look earlier in America's history as well and the many earlier recessions, and working-age adult starvation was still not really a thing outside of probably Indian reservations (who weren't allowed to participate in the capitalist system, of course). That's not to say capitalism would suffice in a natural disaster where Yellowstone blows and suddenly 90% of our crops are covered in ashes, but for the most part, serious hunger is government-orchestrated.

 

[Einherjar86]

The New Deal was four years after the Great Depression, but the Depression didn't have an immediate effect on families, even poor ones--yes? What I mean is, it took some time for the effects to catch up with the average American family. So the New Deal came about at what was perhaps an appropriate time... I'm not saying that New Deal was primarily responsible for moving money into affected families' bank accounts, but I do think it had some impact.

Also, I don't understand how starvation in America is government-orchestrated.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

@HamburgerBoy still waiting on for you to prove to us that your historic bloodline isnt swamped.

 

[The Ozzman]

Boy Scouts of America to 'start' accepting girls. Person in charge of co-ed Venture Crews unavailable for comment:


https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/11/us/boy-scouts-girls.html

The board of directors of the Boy Scouts of America voted unanimously on Wednesday to allow girls into the century-old organization.

“We strive to bring what our organization does best — developing character and leadership for young people — to as many families and youth as possible as we help shape the next generation of leaders,” Michael Surbaugh, the group’s chief scout executive, said in a statement.

The group said that, beginning in 2018, girls will be allowed into its Cub Scout program, which had been limited to boys in the first through fifth grades or between the ages of 7 and 10.

A separate program for older girls will be announced next year and is expected to be available in 2019.

The decision comes nearly two months after the organization was harshly criticized by the president of Girl Scouts of the U.S.A. for what she said was a “covert campaign to recruit girls.”

“I formally request that your organization stay focused on serving the 90 percent of American boys not currently participating in Boy Scouts,” Kathy Hopinkah Hannan, the president of the Girl Scouts, wrote to her counterpart in August.

Earlier this year, the Boy Scouts announced a change to its membership requirements, paving the way for transgender boys to join the group.

Women seriously ruin everything. Can dudes have one thing of their own without it being tainted by estrogen? Venture Crews exist for boys and girls together and have for years. Why not just promote that branch more than the regular BSA?

edit: if this was limited to strictly Cub Scouts, I would most likely be indifferent. Giving women a path to Eagle Scout will not go over well if it is ultimately decided that's what the BSA wants to do. My guess is they will augment a girl's path just enough to differentiate their version of 'Eagle Scout' from the one that has been around since the early 1900s. Otherwise, I don't see the organization succeeding. The liberals like sucking the joy out of everything it seems.

I'm curious how much membership dropped when they started accepting transgender members (because they aren't 'mature' enough to make the decision to serve in the military at age 12 (the age where you can join the BSA) or drive a car but they can decide their sexual orientation at age 8. Sounds legit!)

 

[HamburgerBoy]

As long as they don't reduce the requirements for what is necessary to be considered a Whatever Scout, I don't see the big deal.

The New Deal was four years after the Great Depression, but the Depression didn't have an immediate effect on families, even poor ones--yes? What I mean is, it took some time for the effects to catch up with the average American family. So the New Deal came about at what was perhaps an appropriate time... I'm not saying that New Deal was primarily responsible for moving money into affected families' bank accounts, but I do think it had some impact.

Also, I don't understand how starvation in America is government-orchestrated.

The Dust Bowl had fairly rapid effects, but regardless, the point is that the New Deal wasn't designed to avert hunger, it was designed to try and kick-start the economy according to Keynesian economics. FDR's government actually burned crops in order to drive up the price/demand for them; hunger was never an issue and never would have been even if the economy continued to decline in the absence of the New Deal.

I'm not saying starvation in America is government-orchestrated; America has never suffered a real famine. Neither has any other nation practicing free market capitalism afaik (colonies like the British Raj or British Ireland don't count as having free markets btw). Where you see famines are under incredible natural disasters, or under governments that excessively meddle in the economy of food.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

@HamburgerBoy still waiting