Topic: The future of the Republican Party
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU started this discussion 14 years ago #23,315
So I've been pondering where the Republican party can go after losing this election. They lost the presidential election in '08 and '12. They haven't had control of the Senate since the midterm elections in '06, and they are going to lose about 8 or 9 seats in the House this election, which potentially puts the Democrats at 198-200 seats, well within striking distance of regaining a majority there in the '14 midterm elections. With minority populations increasing and the white population decreasing, it seems that if current trends hold, the Democratic voter base will be expanding while the Republican's contracts. Just to illustrate this point more vividly, take a look at the CNN exit polls from this election. They give a nice breakdown of who voted for whom, broken down into sections like education, income, race, age, religiosity, etc.
Among the notable results, 93% of African-Americans voted for Democrats, and approximately 70% of Asians and Latinos voted Democrat as well. Self-identified moderates voted Democrat by a margin of 56-41. These results are not unique to this election; this is a trend that has been growing over time. I am not going to go through each statistic, because I think it's worth poking around there yourself and seeing what you find, but if the Republicans lose by this margin to moderates and minorities, they will lose most of their national force because you simply cannot win national elections in the long-term by appealing to a shrinking voter base.
So I see a couple ways this could go. I think the most intelligent path to take is for the Republicans make a push to recruit minority votes by nominating a Latino candidate for President or Vice President in 2016; but more importantly, they should reformulate their platform so that they are reasonably fiscally conservative while also supporting a limited federal government. If they drop the whole obsession with Jesus, gays and drugs, leave those issues up to the states, and elect moderately intelligent politicians who don't speak fondly of rape, then I think they'll stick around for as long as the Democrats do.
The problem with this, is I don't see how they can do that without alienating some core faction: the religious right won't want to drop the Jesus love and obsession with gays, the Tea Partiers seem to be too eager to engage in financial brinksmanship with the Democrats, and the moderates don't appear to have a solid grip on these extremes.
So I'm curious, Minichan, where do you see the Republicans headed?
Among the notable results, 93% of African-Americans voted for Democrats, and approximately 70% of Asians and Latinos voted Democrat as well. Self-identified moderates voted Democrat by a margin of 56-41. These results are not unique to this election; this is a trend that has been growing over time. I am not going to go through each statistic, because I think it's worth poking around there yourself and seeing what you find, but if the Republicans lose by this margin to moderates and minorities, they will lose most of their national force because you simply cannot win national elections in the long-term by appealing to a shrinking voter base.
So I see a couple ways this could go. I think the most intelligent path to take is for the Republicans make a push to recruit minority votes by nominating a Latino candidate for President or Vice President in 2016; but more importantly, they should reformulate their platform so that they are reasonably fiscally conservative while also supporting a limited federal government. If they drop the whole obsession with Jesus, gays and drugs, leave those issues up to the states, and elect moderately intelligent politicians who don't speak fondly of rape, then I think they'll stick around for as long as the Democrats do.
The problem with this, is I don't see how they can do that without alienating some core faction: the religious right won't want to drop the Jesus love and obsession with gays, the Tea Partiers seem to be too eager to engage in financial brinksmanship with the Democrats, and the moderates don't appear to have a solid grip on these extremes.
So I'm curious, Minichan, where do you see the Republicans headed?
(Edited 6 minutes later.)
squeegee !firstkPE1Q joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 17 minutes later[^] [v] #364,582
here's what we need to do:
we need to draw 3 columns, and down the middle column list all of the the things republicans and democrats agree upon. Then on the left column write all of the things democrats disagree with republicans on, and on the right list all the things the republicans disagree with the democrats on.
Next we found a new party based upon the middle column, and let the fringe idiots clutch to their respective extremes.
we need to draw 3 columns, and down the middle column list all of the the things republicans and democrats agree upon. Then on the left column write all of the things democrats disagree with republicans on, and on the right list all the things the republicans disagree with the democrats on.
Next we found a new party based upon the middle column, and let the fringe idiots clutch to their respective extremes.
Syntax joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 4 minutes later, 21 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #364,583
@OP
> If they drop the whole obsession with Jesus, gays and drugs
> So I'm curious, Minichan, where do you see the Republicans headed?
Fat chance of that. Right wings remain Right Wings. True believers do not accommodate.
Watching a lot of Fox but mostly on TVio and lots to catch up. So far most of the pundits have figured out the demographics and see what failed for them. I should do a topic on how they got it so wrong all along. I will put the link here for you to enjoy. They really did believe up to the very last minute they were winning. Solid reasons to laff at polls and go with the gizmo they had going for them.
But it seems gizmo failed to be loaded with US Census which is what Dems used to figure out where to do what they did so well.
High very high level of Black Latinos and Single Single Single White Women. Lots of very young with Dems and the Olds with Rep. So unless Reps stop with SELF Deport and I wanted to say Self Abort but dat no fit ...Republicans will end up Aborting themselves long term. Latinos are very good at popping out babies.
http://news.yahoo.com/analysis--why-mitt-romney-may-have-taken-so-long-to-concede.html
> If they drop the whole obsession with Jesus, gays and drugs
> So I'm curious, Minichan, where do you see the Republicans headed?
Fat chance of that. Right wings remain Right Wings. True believers do not accommodate.
Watching a lot of Fox but mostly on TVio and lots to catch up. So far most of the pundits have figured out the demographics and see what failed for them. I should do a topic on how they got it so wrong all along. I will put the link here for you to enjoy. They really did believe up to the very last minute they were winning. Solid reasons to laff at polls and go with the gizmo they had going for them.
But it seems gizmo failed to be loaded with US Census which is what Dems used to figure out where to do what they did so well.
High very high level of Black Latinos and Single Single Single White Women. Lots of very young with Dems and the Olds with Rep. So unless Reps stop with SELF Deport and I wanted to say Self Abort but dat no fit ...Republicans will end up Aborting themselves long term. Latinos are very good at popping out babies.
http://news.yahoo.com/analysis--why-mitt-romney-may-have-taken-so-long-to-concede.html
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Ks !KansasxqvM joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 4 minutes later, 26 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #364,584
The Republicans have painted themselves into a corner. Without the white, old, crusty, evangelical vote they're pretty much fucked. That's why we saw a super-conservative Mitt on the campaign trail, and a moderate Mitt during the debates. The Republicans are in a bad position nationally, but they aren't going to lose red states anytime soon. It's nice to think the party is imploding, and I do think is, but it's a slow motion implosion. For the time being the Republicans will likely double down on the tactics of the previous 4 years. I would be surprised to see anything but political-paralysis anytime soon.
I'm positive the Republicans think they have chance at the white house in 2016, and lets face it, they do. People voted in Bush after 8 smashing years of Clinton. Never underestimate the stupidity of people.
> If they drop the whole obsession with Jesus, gays and drugs, leave those issues up to the states, and elect moderately intelligent politicians who don't speak fondly of rape
They really can't though. They've made it their platform, and it's been in right-wing media so long it's like burned into voters brains.
I'm positive the Republicans think they have chance at the white house in 2016, and lets face it, they do. People voted in Bush after 8 smashing years of Clinton. Never underestimate the stupidity of people.
> If they drop the whole obsession with Jesus, gays and drugs, leave those issues up to the states, and elect moderately intelligent politicians who don't speak fondly of rape
They really can't though. They've made it their platform, and it's been in right-wing media so long it's like burned into voters brains.
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 4 minutes later, 30 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #364,586
What does Asian mean in USA? I can not understand why East Asians (Chinese, Japanese, Koreans) would vote for Obama. South East Asians I can understand, and Indians I can understand. Any further breakdowns on Asian?
I agree with your suggestions. I think Rand Paul would be a good choice.
The whole rape thing comes about because of the "rape or incest" exceptions that people support for abortion legislation. Incest is clear - but if rape can mean "consent was impaired due to intoxication" then such legislation has not prohibited any abortions. This means that people have to define rape - which leads to malignment by their opponents (often by deliberately distorting the statements). This is a politically (and I contend philosophically) impossible place to be in, and must be abandoned.
You will probably end up with a "moderate" Republican ticket again, though.
I agree with your suggestions. I think Rand Paul would be a good choice.
The whole rape thing comes about because of the "rape or incest" exceptions that people support for abortion legislation. Incest is clear - but if rape can mean "consent was impaired due to intoxication" then such legislation has not prohibited any abortions. This means that people have to define rape - which leads to malignment by their opponents (often by deliberately distorting the statements). This is a politically (and I contend philosophically) impossible place to be in, and must be abandoned.
You will probably end up with a "moderate" Republican ticket again, though.
Syntax replied with this 14 years ago, 9 minutes later, 39 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #364,587
Tea Party Slams Mitt Romney as 'Weak Moderate Candidate' Hand-Picked by 'Mushy-Middle' GOPThe Tea Party Patriots, one of the most prominent organizations within the fiscally conservative tea party movement, says Mitt Romney lost the election because he was a "weak moderate" candidate that was "hand-picked" by the establishment GOP.
"For those of us who believe that America, as founded, is the greatest country in the history of the world – a 'Shining city upon a hill' – we wanted someone who would fight for us," Tea Party Patriots co-founder Jenny Beth Martin wrote in an e-mail, quoting 40th president and conservative hero Ronald Reagan. "We wanted a fighter like Ronald Reagan who boldly championed America's founding principles... What we got was a weak moderate candidate, hand-picked by the Beltway elites and country-club establishment."
Romney made efforts in the campaign to reach out to the tea party—especially in his choice of right-wing ideologue Paul Ryan as running mate. But as the election drew closer, the GOP nominee tacked closer to the center, and in the final debate he made few contrasts between himself and President Obama.
The Tea Party Patriots said it had to work harder going forward to stop the "mushy-middle" members of the GOP from "getting rolled" by the left.
The group also told followers that they were "not going away," despite losses Tuesday night by tea party congressmen Allen West in Florida and Joe Walsh in Illinois, as well as a near-loss by Rep. Michele Bachmann in Minnesota.
Martin said the group would now turn its attention back to Congress, where it has been more successful in pushing its message of fiscal conservatism, where it would battle over the budget, the debt and against Obamacare.
protip !!pMmAiEwOm joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 12 minutes later, 51 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #364,588
Baby boomers will plague us for quite a while longer. The GOP will coddle them as the base while trying to expand amongst Latinos.
Their heavy pandering will go to the Millennials, and they’ll try to sell the bullshit idea that the huge costs of college and all of those student loans are the fault of the left and big government. They’ll prey on the divides between what Millennials have and lack. Low information voters still have a good cost-to-benefit ratio.
Their heavy pandering will go to the Millennials, and they’ll try to sell the bullshit idea that the huge costs of college and all of those student loans are the fault of the left and big government. They’ll prey on the divides between what Millennials have and lack. Low information voters still have a good cost-to-benefit ratio.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Syntax replied with this 14 years ago, 9 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #364,589
@previous (protip !!pMmAiEwOm)
agree except how are they?
> The GOP will coddle them as the base while trying to expand amongst Latinos.
agree except how are they?
> The GOP will coddle them as the base while trying to expand amongst Latinos.
Anonymous E replied with this 14 years ago, 1 hour later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #364,595
@364,588 (protip !!pMmAiEwOm)> the bullshit idea that the huge costs of college and all of those student loans are the fault of the left and big government
But that's true.
Anonymous C replied with this 14 years ago, 11 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #364,597
Anonymous E replied with this 14 years ago, 1 hour later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #364,600
Anonymous C replied with this 14 years ago, 6 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #364,602
@previous (E)
Sure sure why not remove all regulations from banks & industries.
> Let the free market be free of gov intervention.
Sure sure why not remove all regulations from banks & industries.
> Let the free market be free of gov intervention.
Anonymous E replied with this 14 years ago, 1 hour later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #364,609
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 7 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #364,610
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 1 hour later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #364,613
doctor dreamworks md !jdTkvovFCQ joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 3 hours later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #364,620
Anonymous E replied with this 14 years ago, 7 hours later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #364,684
Anonymous G replied with this 14 years ago, 10 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #364,826
Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #364,828
You need to get out more.
Anonymous E replied with this 14 years ago, 2 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #364,839
Anonymous H replied with this 14 years ago, 3 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #364,871
@previous (E)
Not only do you believe in the fantasy man in the sky, but you believe human economies are strictly rational and textbook-ideal lolololololol
Not only do you believe in the fantasy man in the sky, but you believe human economies are strictly rational and textbook-ideal lolololololol
(Edited 19 seconds later.)
Anonymous E replied with this 14 years ago, 7 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #364,994
squeegee !hbZVTk6JYc joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #364,997
Anonymous L joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #365,000
@364,871 (H)
He also believes that without welfare, every child and disabled person would be taken care of by private donations. Because most people are giving, and kind. lol
He also believes that without welfare, every child and disabled person would be taken care of by private donations. Because most people are giving, and kind. lol
Anonymous F replied with this 14 years ago, 10 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #365,001
@364,994 (E)
> mountainman posts a cartoon mocking somebody who would view child porn
oh the ironing
> mountainman posts a cartoon mocking somebody who would view child porn
oh the ironing
Anonymous L replied with this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #365,002
Anonymous F replied with this 14 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #365,005
@previous (L)
Yes, but (only for devil’s advocate purposes, I swear) he is for child porn, because it does not harm.
Yes, but (only for devil’s advocate purposes, I swear) he is for child porn, because it does not harm.
Ks !KansasxqvM replied with this 14 years ago, 38 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #365,007
@365,000 (L)
It's interesting to see Libertariantards ignore that charity and government combined is unable to take care of all the members of our society in need as it is.
It's interesting to see Libertariantards ignore that charity and government combined is unable to take care of all the members of our society in need as it is.
Anonymous F replied with this 14 years ago, 9 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #365,009
Anonymous E replied with this 14 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #365,014
Anonymous E double-posted this 14 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #365,016
@365,000 (L)
So let me get this straight:
1. We live in a democracy. People decide what they want the state to do (hypothetically).
2. People want the state to take their money and give it to the poor.
3. People don't want to give their money to the poor.
Which one of these is false, because they can't all be simultaneously true.
So let me get this straight:
1. We live in a democracy. People decide what they want the state to do (hypothetically).
2. People want the state to take their money and give it to the poor.
3. People don't want to give their money to the poor.
Which one of these is false, because they can't all be simultaneously true.
squeegee !hbZVTk6JYc replied with this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #365,018
Anonymous E replied with this 14 years ago, 9 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #365,019
Anonymous E double-posted this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #365,021
Anonymous E triple-posted this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #365,023
@365,009 (F)
Free market just means people. What a horrible idea - people deciding how to use their own property!
Free market just means people. What a horrible idea - people deciding how to use their own property!
Anonymous F replied with this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #365,026
squeegee !hbZVTk6JYc replied with this 14 years ago, 37 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #365,027
@365,021 (E)
Jesus said "the poor you will always have with you."
Who are we to argue with jesus? Obviously we can't make everyone not poor, jesus has rigged the game against them. That's why social programs + charity can't even fix it. The problem is not fixable, just throw enough money at it that the poor stay out of non-poor areas. That's what jesus would do.
Jesus said "the poor you will always have with you."
Who are we to argue with jesus? Obviously we can't make everyone not poor, jesus has rigged the game against them. That's why social programs + charity can't even fix it. The problem is not fixable, just throw enough money at it that the poor stay out of non-poor areas. That's what jesus would do.
Anonymous M joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 9 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #365,028
@364,994 (E)
I wonder how much of this image actually reigns true or if the opposite of the bottom panel is true.
I wonder how much of this image actually reigns true or if the opposite of the bottom panel is true.
Anonymous L replied with this 14 years ago, 52 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #365,029
@365,007 (Ks !KansasxqvM)
They'd rather see starving urchins dying in the streets. lol What a great country in which to reside.
They'd rather see starving urchins dying in the streets. lol What a great country in which to reside.
Anonymous E replied with this 14 years ago, 33 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #365,030
Anonymous L replied with this 14 years ago, 43 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #365,031
@365,005 (F)
Oh I know. He has made enough posts defending kiddie fucker Bartie Freeman, that the message is clear.
Oh I know. He has made enough posts defending kiddie fucker Bartie Freeman, that the message is clear.
Anonymous F replied with this 14 years ago, 28 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #365,033
@365,030 (E)
If somebody profits by extracting value from the commons, are they immoral to not give back to the commons?
If somebody profits by extracting value from the commons, are they immoral to not give back to the commons?
Anonymous E replied with this 14 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #365,036
@365,029 (L)
That was a common sight in Communist countries. Tens of millions of people starved to death in communists countries in the 20th century, in peacetime.
I support free markets because I don't want people to starve to death.
That was a common sight in Communist countries. Tens of millions of people starved to death in communists countries in the 20th century, in peacetime.
I support free markets because I don't want people to starve to death.
Anonymous F replied with this 14 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #365,037
Anonymous E replied with this 14 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #365,040
@365,031 (L)
I love how instead of attacking arguments, you attack the fact that someone made an argument. Do you even value honesty, truth etc? Or do you just want to "win"?
I love how instead of attacking arguments, you attack the fact that someone made an argument. Do you even value honesty, truth etc? Or do you just want to "win"?
Anonymous F replied with this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #365,041
@365,031 (L)
And he only knows about Mr Freeman through legal means and follows the legal saga for serious academic study.
And he only knows about Mr Freeman through legal means and follows the legal saga for serious academic study.
Anonymous L replied with this 14 years ago, 0 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #365,042
@365,036 (E)
How often do you see those things in a "welfare state"? Tell me of these free market places, so that we may judge them.
How often do you see those things in a "welfare state"? Tell me of these free market places, so that we may judge them.
Anonymous E replied with this 14 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #365,043
@365,033 (F)
That is the tragedy of the commons, which is why private property is preferable. Morality is more than just strict legality. You would have to appeal to common law to find an answer to that question, which would differ according to how the commons arose, how they are used etc.
That is the tragedy of the commons, which is why private property is preferable. Morality is more than just strict legality. You would have to appeal to common law to find an answer to that question, which would differ according to how the commons arose, how they are used etc.
Anonymous F replied with this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #365,045
@previous (E)
So, if the past ~3765 years of written law have failed to ensure private transactions are free from abuse, what is the revolutionary leap that the Free Market will make that is wholly free from said history of flawed implementation?
So, if the past ~3765 years of written law have failed to ensure private transactions are free from abuse, what is the revolutionary leap that the Free Market will make that is wholly free from said history of flawed implementation?
(Edited 53 seconds later.)
Anonymous F double-posted this 14 years ago, 15 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #365,047
Anonymous L replied with this 14 years ago, 58 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #365,048
What was life like before so much government intervention? Was food safe? cars, chemicals? How did we treat children?
Anonymous L double-posted this 14 years ago, 38 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #365,049
Anonymous E replied with this 14 years ago, 39 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #365,050
@365,042 (L)
We see unemployment driven up by minimum wage laws. We see rationing from various price controls. We see distortion of production from central banking.
We see unemployment driven up by minimum wage laws. We see rationing from various price controls. We see distortion of production from central banking.
Anonymous F replied with this 14 years ago, 23 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #365,052
Anonymous E replied with this 14 years ago, 24 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #365,053
Anonymous F replied with this 14 years ago, 38 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #365,054
Anonymous F double-posted this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #365,055
@365,053 (E)
And since the rational, free economic exchange is only perfectly balanced with maximum information, how do actors in the stateless market know their information is complete and accurate?
And since the rational, free economic exchange is only perfectly balanced with maximum information, how do actors in the stateless market know their information is complete and accurate?
Anonymous L replied with this 14 years ago, 54 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #365,056
Anonymous E replied with this 14 years ago, 34 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #365,057
@365,048 (L)
Just reason it out. Would a company known to have produced bad food, cars, chemicals survive in a free market?
Just reason it out. Would a company known to have produced bad food, cars, chemicals survive in a free market?
Anonymous L replied with this 14 years ago, 42 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #365,058
@365,052 (F)
I love MM because he sees the government like its a entity separate from the people. Like people dont make the laws, and regulations.
I love MM because he sees the government like its a entity separate from the people. Like people dont make the laws, and regulations.
Anonymous E replied with this 14 years ago, 35 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #365,059
@365,055 (F)
How do actors in a state market know their information is complete and accurate? They don't.
How do actors in a state market know their information is complete and accurate? They don't.
Anonymous L replied with this 14 years ago, 15 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #365,060
@365,057 (E)
lol You dont know history. This happened all of the time. Why do you think that we created labor laws, and food regulations instead of just letting those companies die out? loldamn
lol You dont know history. This happened all of the time. Why do you think that we created labor laws, and food regulations instead of just letting those companies die out? loldamn
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous F replied with this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #365,061
@365,059 (E)
The FASB, SEC, and 10Q filings have shown themselves to be quite necessary. The means of contesting this information for accuracy and completeness have shown themselves effective, when actually enforced and followed through on.
The FASB, SEC, and 10Q filings have shown themselves to be quite necessary. The means of contesting this information for accuracy and completeness have shown themselves effective, when actually enforced and followed through on.
(Edited 4 minutes later.)
Ks !KansasxqvM replied with this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #365,062
@365,058 (L)
People get rooked into this Libertarian shit all the time, it's like they abandon all logic in favor of faith. They have faith their ideas will work based on correlations they've usually invented. It's really no different than arguing with someone about religious faith. The pure free markets will be best if you just believe.
People get rooked into this Libertarian shit all the time, it's like they abandon all logic in favor of faith. They have faith their ideas will work based on correlations they've usually invented. It's really no different than arguing with someone about religious faith. The pure free markets will be best if you just believe.
Anonymous F replied with this 14 years ago, 30 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #365,063
@365,059 (E)
> How do actors in a state market know their information is complete and accurate? They don't.
False dichotomy: state markets cannot provide fair exchange so the only valid exchange is wholly stateless, because people are rational and the only time people screw others over is because of state intervention.
lololololololol
> How do actors in a state market know their information is complete and accurate? They don't.
False dichotomy: state markets cannot provide fair exchange so the only valid exchange is wholly stateless, because people are rational and the only time people screw others over is because of state intervention.
lololololololol
Anonymous L replied with this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #365,064
People make laws because they want to discourage certain behaviors that negatively affect society and individual people. Dont want to be killed? Make murder illegal. Raped as a child, and suffered permanent psychological issues? Make child rape illegal. People make these laws.
Anonymous F replied with this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #365,066
@previous (L)
Yes, but the fact that I am no longer free willed to make my rational cost-benefit analysis of child rape deprives me of moral freedoms and oppresses my god-given rights.
Yes, but the fact that I am no longer free willed to make my rational cost-benefit analysis of child rape deprives me of moral freedoms and oppresses my god-given rights.
Anonymous F double-posted this 14 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #365,067
@365,064 (L)
You see, child rape is only a problem because state intervention artificially inflates the market price of child porn. If the child porn market were unregulated, there would be a natural balance between supply and demand. The raped children would all be helped by charity, the rapists would be shunned by their communities, and the freedom of natural law would be upheld.
Persons who commit child rape and peddle child porn are simply taking advantage of a government-caused inefficiency in the market. They are acting morally to provide a service that is in demand and in no way are they to blame for the negative externalization.
Why don’t you understand this simple concept? Statist oppressor!
You see, child rape is only a problem because state intervention artificially inflates the market price of child porn. If the child porn market were unregulated, there would be a natural balance between supply and demand. The raped children would all be helped by charity, the rapists would be shunned by their communities, and the freedom of natural law would be upheld.
Persons who commit child rape and peddle child porn are simply taking advantage of a government-caused inefficiency in the market. They are acting morally to provide a service that is in demand and in no way are they to blame for the negative externalization.
Why don’t you understand this simple concept? Statist oppressor!
(Edited 3 minutes later.)
Anonymous L replied with this 14 years ago, 21 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #365,072
Anonymous G replied with this 14 years ago, 16 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #365,078
Anonymous F replied with this 14 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #365,079
Anonymous E replied with this 14 years ago, 2 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #365,130
@365,060 (L)
A generation of socialist thought amongst intellectuals and a popular ignorance of economics.
A generation of socialist thought amongst intellectuals and a popular ignorance of economics.
Anonymous F replied with this 14 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #365,132
@previous (E)
> implying people cannot both understand economics and support state controls over markets
> implying your truth is the only truth
> implying people cannot both understand economics and support state controls over markets
> implying your truth is the only truth
(Edited 13 seconds later.)
Anonymous E replied with this 14 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #365,133
@365,061 (F)
Demonstrate this to be the case. Show how these results could not be achieved otherwise.
Demonstrate this to be the case. Show how these results could not be achieved otherwise.
Anonymous E double-posted this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #365,134
@365,062 (Ks !KansasxqvM)
I like how you attack people for using faith over logic by using a faith argument - i.e. just believe what I said - instead of demonstrating such a thing to be true.
I like how you attack people for using faith over logic by using a faith argument - i.e. just believe what I said - instead of demonstrating such a thing to be true.
Anonymous E triple-posted this 14 years ago, 21 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #365,135
Anonymous F replied with this 14 years ago, 39 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #365,136
Anonymous F double-posted this 14 years ago, 51 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #365,137
Anonymous E replied with this 14 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #365,138
@365,063 (F)
> False dichotomy:
No, it's really not. In everything there is two choices - state or market. There is no other option.
> because people are rational
This doesn't mean what you think it means. It doesn't mean that people are all intelligent, formal logicians, without emotions. It just means that people act to achieve ends. Behavior isn't random. People desire an end, and act to bring it about.
> and the only time people screw others over is because of state intervention.
Nobody has ever said that. Strawman.
> False dichotomy:
No, it's really not. In everything there is two choices - state or market. There is no other option.
> because people are rational
This doesn't mean what you think it means. It doesn't mean that people are all intelligent, formal logicians, without emotions. It just means that people act to achieve ends. Behavior isn't random. People desire an end, and act to bring it about.
> and the only time people screw others over is because of state intervention.
Nobody has ever said that. Strawman.
Anonymous F replied with this 14 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #365,140
Anonymous E replied with this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #365,141
@365,137 (F)
Well, all I'd have to do is say the exact opposite. You didn't offer evidence or a logical argument. You just stated "It is so". "It isn't so" is a sufficient rebuttal, but I am actually interested in discussing this issue, so I want you to go further.
Well, all I'd have to do is say the exact opposite. You didn't offer evidence or a logical argument. You just stated "It is so". "It isn't so" is a sufficient rebuttal, but I am actually interested in discussing this issue, so I want you to go further.