Feedback: Politics and the Internet Dog 106
From: Zach
Date: Tuesday, September, 26 2:45 p.m.
"Jon,
"First of all, politics will never "end" as long as there are people with different opinions and agendas, and finite resources. Politics is simply the art of how we all live together in a civil (or uncivil) society. The Internet may affect how it is played out, but it won't change the fact that it happens...
"As for the much-ballyhoed "apathy" of the American public, in some ways it's a rational response. People "know" that we have the best government money can buy, and that our reality field is shaped by corporate media giving us corporate candidates...So politics is not dead. What is dying is widespread, popular participation in politics. What this should be seen as is is not the Triumph of the Internet, but as the disenfranchisement of the average person."
From: Mike
Date: Tuesday, September 26, 2000 3:50 P.M.
"You ask:" Can anybody cite a single interesting or important idea or argument that's emerged from the months of campaigning in the current U.S. presidential race?"
The answer: "Partial privatization of SS, even as feeble as the proposals from either major party candidate are, is both important considering what is at stake (the likely crash and burn of the SS system, or horrific payroll tax hikes) and interesting in that this has always been a taboo topic."
From Robert
Date: Tuesday, September 27, 2000 2:51 PM
"Without meaning to give offense, I think you're far off the mark with your 'Last Days of Politics' essay...politics is not about parties, it's about power. If you have political power, you can have things your way; if you don't, you're stuck at the mercy of those who do. This is why politics is so appealing to so many people; on one level it's basic self-preservation, and an another level, it's a narcotic. "
From: tig
Date: September 26, 2000 4:02 PM
Jon,
I have an idea for a symbolic Presidential campaign. The "campaign" would take place entirely on an Internet Web site. There would be no public appearances by the candidate. This campaign should probably be called an anti-campaign because the point of the Web site would be to highlight a significant problem with the current paradigm used to elect our leader.
The current process causes candidates to focus on making promises in exchange for votes. This vigorous campaign activity has been institutionalized by the party system. It has resulted in candidates giving too much attention to subjects that have nothing to do with what is written in the Constitution. None of the candidates show any interest in carrying on *The Great Experiment* as it was originally envisioned by the founders of this government.
The central premise of the anti-campaign would be to re-elect a virtual George Washington as the next president. The person to be elected would promise to do his or her best to make decisions as they believe George Washington would if he were alive today. The purpose of the symbolic campaign is to remind people of the origins of our political system. George Washington set the standards for behavior for a president. In recent years the presidents have been poor reflections of this noble statesman. He was a singular figure in the history of our country in many ways. I find it notable that he did not seek the office of president, he ran without opposition, he never campaigned for the office, and was not a member of a party. The actual person who would be elected to serve as George Washington would run anonymously under the pseudonym "The Internet Dog". This name is inspired by the 1993 New Yorker cartoon. This cartoon captures the essence of Internet equality. The goal of running completely anonymously is give focus to the ideas of the office, not the person. Critics may claim that electing someone without physically seeing them will not allow the character of the candidate to be viewed, but this is nonsense. The obsession with the physical appearance of the candidate is a 20th century invention. A desire to not let ego or personal traits enter into the vote is a very strong character statement.
From: Mark
Date: Thu, Sep 28, 2000, 12:01 PM
"Jon, ...I do have a comment on the changing political expectations of the generations. I am a computer scientist (26 years old, "gen X" I suppose).
Personally, the level of my political discernment is a direct consequence of my interaction with technology --- namely that as a programmer and mathematician, I approach politics with as much scrutiny and analytics as I do computation. I've come to expect more clarity in the law and I have a strong sense of what American citizenry should mean. I wonder if this critical thought is partially responsible for the change in political expectations. (The remaining cause can probably be attributed to the identity politics of libertarians, but that is an entirely different subject.)
From: "K"
Date: Sat, Sep 30, 2000, 8:37 AM
Katz,
It's late and I'm having difficulty forming even the simplest of sentence structures -- I've been awake over 26 hours now so I'm a little out of it. Before I begin, let me first say that I have a great deal of respect for you... Yet as I much as respect you, I cannot be so bold as to support the statement that politics are losing their place in society altogether. The current state of politics will no doubt remain unchanged so long as the public tolerates it.,..
To say that politics are insignificant is to deny the power of the government. If you wish to reaffirm the power of our government, "forget" to pay your taxes. I assure you the government will take notice and spring into action. The government is, and will always be, in control. We cannot allow ourselves to disregard the ignorance of recent legislation regarding the Internet. We cannot allow ourselves to forget that "they" are in control, not us. The fact that there is such a distinction between "they" and "us" is a problem in itself. The bottom line is, this is not our Internet. As of now, legislation lags behind and the 'net remains, for the most part, lawless; like any frontier. But in order for it to become settled and for communities to flourish, government will step in and laws will be made. Privacy/anonymity will be lost and accountability will be ensured. .. In order to protect technology from restrictive legislation, we have to pay attention to politics.
I believe it is true that politics will have to be reborn to fit into the new culture.
From: Chris
Date: Tuesday, September 28, 2000 2:48 PM
"Jon,
Regarding your "Last Days of Politics" comments: I like this line of thought...I think the future of freedom and the survival of humans is grounded in the notion that "There is no one right way to live." No matter how many programs, band-aids, social policies, financial interventions and celebrity rock-star benefit concerts you throw at the world's problems, they will always just be small sticks trying to slow the flow of a large river.
"The politics of the future will be about "what works." They will no longer be centered around individuals with health care plans and tax cuts, but will highlight the ways of life that are thoroughly, provably successful and sustainable. That applies to everything from education to environmentalism, from economic models of society to social norms of human relationships."
From: Mark
Date: Tuesday, September 26, 2000 2:06 PM
"Sir,
"I spent several hours a day online and watch politics carefully. I do not see the Net worming its way into politics (and thus destroying it as you seem to posit) but rather the other way around -- politics is beginning to worm its way into the Net. The Net, from the earliest stages that I was involved in, has been a very Libertarian place. Largely populated by techies, idealists and college kids, the majority who took the time to go online were not deeply connected to politics in any way. Instead, we tended to be the ones who felt that so long as government was not noticing us, we were the best off.
"Now, however, the Net is the country. And politics is becoming one with the Net...While on the Net we see all thought possible, with the two parties we see only thought acceptable to the majority. The fact is that the Net does not change common sense or the cultural thought of the American populace."
From: Kara
Date: Tuesday, September 26, 2000 1:47 p.m.
"50/50 disagree. Politics as we know it, I think, are definitely out the window. Nobody with half an eye open has much interest in voting...I guess I'd rather things just became more direct. Some honesty in our leadership. (Hello, I'm RJR Nabisco, and I'll be dictating your fiscal policy for the term.)"
From: JoeC
Date: Tuesday, September 26, 2000 11:32 PM
"Look at energy. The harnessing of energy has created modern life, it is the backbone of society. It has grown amazingly powerful institutions, technologies, etc. The political process protests these old technologies and power structures, more accurately they own them. Even though we have the means to completely revolutionize how we use energy using the Net, and other new technoligies, here we are once again in the midst of another fossil fuel crisis -- insane."
From: Marcelo (from Italy)
Date: September 27, 2000 10:43 PM
"The reason politics is not very interesting, is because we are pretty much happy with the current status quo; but, given the complexity of our civilization, it is naive to think that you can live well under bad government. If there was a candidate proposing the banning of all computers (I'm just being ludicrous to make a point) politics would suddenly end. That would be the hacker's top priority."
From: Gordon
Date: Tuesday, September 26, 2000 11:34 PM
"The way you describe it, a revolution is coming, where by doing nothing, something is done. While this may work if we can get people educated, the general populace can still be easily sucked in by personable politicians and leaders. When enough people hold the essential meme of anarchy -- that explicit authority is not necessary for free society to function), we will wake up and find ourselves in a truly free world."
From: Tom
Tuesday, September 26, 2000 6:07 PM
"...Though I disagree that politics is finished, I think you have hit on a legitimate phenomenon. I believe it was Boaz who first observed that more and more people are entering the "grey market," where things not quite illegal but not quite sanctioned exist. he used the examples of homeschool, gated communities and Internet medical advice (IIRC) to show that more and more private citizens, and not just the rich were "seceding" from official society. No public education, no public police, no state-licensed sawbones. As the major parties blend together, descending into the pit of the demagogue, the public is "on its own," finding solutions to the problems they perceive."
From Jake
Date: September, 28, 2000 5:40
"You could be right on this one. I suppose it had to happen. But you still suck, and I intend to block you again after sending this."
Partial privitisation of the SS (Score:1)
Our SS service is the envy of the world as it stands, offering an egalitarian system to all, with a range of departments each dedicated to the execution of their duty. Partial privitisation will mean a reduction in security, manpower and , strengh of numbers to the Storm Troopers
Re: (Score:1)
Politics can never go away.. (Score:2)
There will always be somebody out there trying to prove they are right and to get the power. Do you actually think that politicians want to seve and spend their lives representing the interests of the common man, BS!!! They just want the power associated with political office. Politics can never end.
The Internet isn't just a dog... (Score:1)
I'm sorry, but I've seen too many websites make their creators look like morons. Slashdot is a great one, but many company websites are interactive laughing stocks.
Politics (Score:2)
I tend to agree with the general tenor of the replies. Politics isn't going to dissapear, since it's the interaction of people (and control, as one very enlightened fellows says). Instead, it's going to be transformed. Already, you can see politicans trying to extend their control to the net. The question is, are they going to succeed? That's what we have to work on.
...phil
People listen to politicians (Score:2)
GW Bush: Al Gore is a liar. Vote for him and his big government will tell you when you can use the restroom.
John Q. Public: Sheesh...two liars, who if elected will ruin my life. Guess I'll forget to vote yet again!
"Government is really good at only one thing, and that is to break your leg, then hand you a crutch and say, 'Look, if it weren't for the government you wouldn't be able to walk,'" - Harry Browne [harrybrowne.org]
End Politics Forever! Ctuhulu for president. (Score:2)
No More Years! No More Years!
Death of Politics: Wishful Thinking (Score:3)
Take Social Security for example. There is no question that social security will go bankrupt, it is only a question of when. As with any pyramid scheme, a linear increase in the number of people who are in a position to benefit from the system means that there is an exponential increase in the number of people who will ultimately not be able to reclaim their initial investment. It is taking longer and longer to seniors to reclaim their lifetime investment in social security because the scam has been running for 50 years.
However, it would be impossible to simply dispose of social security. Millions of Americans are depending on social security to fund their retirement; on average, individuals spend over 100% of what they earn. How can people with no savings ever retire? We would need to phase SS out over a period of 50-100 years with lower contributions/benefits every interval until the system is eliminated entirely. However, the dynamics of our democracy require a change in leadership every 4 years and the current partisan tendencies of the legislature would make it very difficult to convine 25 separate legislatures/executives to agree to the terms of the original arrangement. If there is merely one period of dissension, the proposal must be trashed.
Politicians are therefore limited to a very small number of programs that they can implement in individual terms. Consequently, the issues that campaigns cover is only a small range of issues that politicians feel confident addressing. Of course, the ability to hire a smart group of people to create a platform does not mean that one is a skillful leader or is capable of dealing with crises as they develop.
We can hope for reform, better leaders, or a better system of government, but I have yet to hear one convincing proposal of how these drastic changes could be carried out. In politics, as in philosophy, we cannot escape our past no matter how hard we try. We can be early adopters of new technology and ways of thinking, but we cannot expect society to follow suit. We hail every new development as "revolutionary" in the vein hope that it will somehow improve our present situation, but it rarely does.
Feh.. (Score:1)
Web Candidate!! (Score:2)
There already is a web anti-campaign. The candidate is a potted plant! Vote Ficus 2000!! [ficus2000.com]
Hey Stupid!! (Score:1)
Katz at University of Minnesota (Score:2)
--
Social Security (Score:3)
Privatization of social security would be a good way to make a company fail or get social security reform without being a black mark on a candidate's record (since it was a third party that did the horrible things, not them)
Which candidate will support troll rights? (Score:1)
We trolls are a vital part of
Rob Malda has systematically taken away our right to free speech. To paraphrase Benjamin Franklin, I disagree with what a first poster says, bu tI would defend to the death of my account for the right of them to first post. However, just try to submit a subject line with first in it.
If you are modded down 5 times in a day, you're account is closed. That's right, spout an unusual or unpopular opinion five times in a day, and your account is gone. Better toe the party line, Linux is good, Open Source is good, Microsoft is bad, patents are bad.
Rob Malda has instituted cruel and unusual punishments against trolls. Open Source Man was bitchslapped for talking about a wonderful actress with a central role in the geek film series extraordinaire.
Rob Malda has taken away the right for trolls to assemble. While they can presently hang out in a hidden sid, they have no gaurantee that sid will be around tomorrow. They also have no sahred history, the hidden sids expire posts every few weeks.
Please, support your fellow trolls. We probably make up a quarter of the posts and comsume a quarter of the kharma.
thank you very much,
Re:a quote (Score:1)
However, you are probably right about the Roman senator, since most Roman senators were classically educated. So, it's possible that a Roman senator once quoted Pericles on this.
Purely, and simply, untrue (Score:2)
Right. Let the bollocks end here (some chance). Social Security is not any sort of pyramid scheme, because it is not an investment scheme of any kind. Social Security is a transfer payment between the working generation and the retired generation.
In other words, Social Security is an institutionalised, pooled version of the practice of having the younger generation take care of the generation which has retired. Since this practice (elders being fed by youngers) has been in place since the beginning of human civilisation, I think we can agree that it is not "unsustainable" or "doomed to collapse" per se.
In fact, there is simply no alternative to this intergenerational transfer. If a retired generation is consuming, but no longer producing, then the younger generation will have to consume less than it produces. We can call this difference "tax", we can call it "Social Security" or we can call it "dividends and coupon payments", but it makes no difference at the macro level. Claiming that "saving" and "investment" will "solve" the "Social Security Problem" (sorry for multiple scare-quotes, but it wasn't me who introduced so much shit into the terminology) is just bowing down to the Gods of the Marketplace, invoking a few buzz-words and then carrying on the same. Taking a non-marketed future liability and changing it into a marketed claim on the future doesn't create any new capital; nor could it.
Furthermore, there is no problem. The ratio of retired to working is only one part of the picture. The ratio of interest is the "dependency ratio"; that of the total non-working population to the total working population. This ratio is nowhere near the boundaries of its historical range; nor is it projected to be during the current demographic forecasting horizon.
Keynes said that "Economics is a difficult thing, but nobody will believe it". If proof be needed for this statement, look at the number of people who think they understand Social Security.
The numbers don't add up (Score:2)
From Jon's orig post:
The sci-fi writer and futurist Arthur C. Clarke once wrote that he hoped he would live to see the day -- and he believed he would -- when politics in its present form would cease to matter. "The time will come," he wrote in an essay, "when most of our present controversies on these matters will seem as trivial, or as meaningless, as the theological debates in which the keenest minds of the Middle Ages dissipated their energies." " Browsing on the CNN and Washington Post political Web sites and watching cable news, it seems to me that Clarke may live to see that day, at least for a part of the world -- the tech nation, many high school and college students, people under 40. **i.e. demographics of Slashdot readers, more or less** Journalists, boomers, CEOs and the elderly may still be paying attention to the strange ritual being conducted by the Republicans and Democrats, but from this perspective smack in the middle of an ascending and vibrant alternative culture, nobody else appears to be.
OK, we don't care about politics, but the post on Al Gore and GW and inheritance taxes generate 1100+ comments, and the one on presidential candidates and filtering software is pushing 600 comments right now. Needless to say, most of these comments, including mine, are probably stupid, redundant and/or redundant, but this still seems to indicate a (quantitative) level of discussion unseen in other slashdot stories. I can't find one story in the past week breaking 500 comments (many that come close are also about US politics). OK, some of the crap Katz wrote got lots of comments too - but even that was election-related. (I actually like his stuff, but I feel obligated to use at least one instance of profanity in an post about John Katz.)
It's kind of hard to believe that the Slashdot folks find politics irrelevant. I think the real challenge to the political structure comes from it's inabiltity to control information anymore. Think MojoNation, HQed in the Caymans. There's no way any legal system will have any effect on those guys. Will this make the rest of the system irrelevant? Probably not. Non-information resources are finite and we have to have some system to distribute them....
Re:Katz at University of Minnesota (Score:2)
the anti-democratic US (Score:1)
Something that, as a european, really bothers me about the US is the lack of democracy, of respecting other people's ideas and beliefs.
You can see it at work in the political system especially. 2 parties offering the same ideas (which to make it worse basically suck too) is NOT democracy. Look it up in the dictionary. You'll find that the US political situation doesn't match it's definition.
And it bothers me. It bothers me because the US is the rolemodel for the rest of the world. International rules and habits are modeled after the US ones. Thanks to the US's DMCA Europe is now considering an equal law. Software patents are on the brink of being enforced here too. Don't you people realise that your apathy is not only ruining your own country, but the entire world ? I wish I could do anything but whine about it, but I can't, because I'm not a US citizen. I can protest Europe matching their laws to the US ones, but Europe as a point that different laws over here are bad for our economy, seeing as the world is US-centric.
You may disagree with me, and you _could_ be right. You may tell me it's bad all over the planet, and you _would_ be right. But the way I see it change on a global level can only realistically originate from the US, and if you people don't do it, we'll keep running in circles around the real problems of today's world.
And to those that claim there's nothing really wrong with the world as it is, I say: "Wake up!"
Re:Politics can never go away.. (Score:1)
Politics is no different than marketing or advertising -- the better your pitch, the better your sales. It really is true, especially in the technology industry, and it can make the difference between a failed and a successful company.
Re:Partial privitisation of the SS (Score:1)
Another generation (Score:5)
The Net is certainly transforming the political structure. When I hear my wife, - a woman I love dearly but her belief that good technology ended with Tetris is a thorn in my side - state after the debates that she wants to "look up the candidates web page to see what the details of their plans are", I see how things are changing.
The problem is, its going to take a generation. Napster is a hot topic on the net - while the "average citizen" knows or cares little about it. So is the issue with my.mp3.com, online privacy, copyright, and so on - things the average (read: not heavily online) citizen) usually doesn't regard as important.
Over 2/3's of the voters are over the age of 40 (simply by the fact that if the average life-span is 100, then we have more people over 40 than anything else). I think this is an important thing to take in. If you look back at every major political movement - civil rights, women's vote, opinions regarding gays and lesbians, new technology - it takes about 20 years for the next generation to fully understand it. By the time that we're in our 40's and 50's (which I imagine is still 20 years out for the majority of slashdot readers) there will be a majority of people interested in issues like online copyright and privacy, or the detail that we can gather on our political candidates.
For those fighting, keep it up - it will take time to build. For those voting, keep informed and inform your friends as well - if you don't tell them, they won't know. And for candidates looking for my vote - be afraid. I'm watching you closely, and those coming after me will watch even closer.
John "Dark Paladin" Hummel
Re:The Internet isn't just a dog... (Score:1)
You think hetergenous networks are a bad thing!?
And you don't seem to understand the difference between bandwidth and latency.
I suppose you write your web apps using ISAPI/NSAPI, or god forbid, ASP?
And what's wrong with being a mongrel? Better then being some slobbering inbred lap-dog owned by effete social parasites.
And what's this have to do with politics, anyway?
--
Re:Look Vern, a troll! (Score:1)
Uh Huh (Score:1)
Re:Eff (Score:1)
I really think /. should adopt a pseudorandom numbering scheme. You could keep the actual post order in the database but just display it as a pseudorandom number seeded with the actual post number and the article time or something. That way people could still link the actual comments with cid=whatever but nobody would really know what number they were.
It would end the FP bullshit but may just bring on another breed of loser. <sigh>
It's all about power (Score:2)
"Anybody who wants to be president should be imediately disqualified from seeking the job..."
Or as I like to think of it...
Nobody who wants that level of power can be trusted with it.
As long as the government has the money and the power to exert the level of control over society that it does today - things will only change for the worse. Take away the power (Libertarians) and nobody will bother throwing money at the government.
Liar !! (Score:1)
Re:Politics can never go away.. (Score:1)
Let's face it, humanity is a power hungry monster.
Politics can never end.
Go on, lock your own cell and throw away the key. That's what you're doing.
Humanity is not a power hungry monster. There are a few criminals who are power hungry monsters, however. The Constitution was intended to construct a system where those monsters would be held in check, through multiple checks and balances.
It failed. The people miscalculated, and they grew lazy and apathetic. Our monsters do not feel threatened. No - they feel entitled! Why are they entitled to rape my freedom? "It's in the Constitution!"
When the political establishment degenerates, and the monsters begin to feel comfortable, what is to be done?
Well, we could slay the monsters. It really wouldn't be too hard, if we start slowly and build momentum. Assassinate senators and representatives who have risen to notoriety for their injustices.
There's another related option: expose the illegitimacy of the entire political machine. How? Vote monarchy! The King could simply echo all the stupid and corrupt legislation passed in Congress!
Both of the above must be implemented in tandem, in my opinion. First, you scare the lawmakers and the media into listening. Then you expose all their evils through the universally detested mouthpiece of the King!
Piano wire? Nah - fiber optic cable!
What? (Score:1)
Re:Ralph Nader -- Not a wasted vote (Score:5)
"Wasting" votes is what the damn Republicans and Democrats want you to think. If you vote what you really believe, rather than voting for the lesser of two evils (the two front-runners in the current incumbent pollitical parties...) then you are wasting a vote. Why? Because if enough people do as you should, vote their feelings, then perhaps enough people will vote for that candidate (or another) and cost a clear victory for the other two candidates at the least. If there's enough states that come in tight instead of being a shoo-in, then maybe the politicians will sit up and take notice that they're screwing up in the eyes of the electorate. And who knows, the candidate you vote for might just actually take that state after all. That would really send a message to the politicians.
It's not a wasted vote to vote Nader, Browne or any of the others. Vote what you believe in!
Re:Social Security (Score:1)
I think you made an excellent point that Social Security isn't supposed to be a retirement fund. Though you missed one point about it. It was designed to help, but it wasn't designed to help EVERYONE. The orginal age to collect retirement benefits was 65 (I think), which was greater than the average life expectancy of the population.
Today, it has become an entitlement that we all "deserve" because we've put so much money in. However, the vast majority of people who draw social security benefits end up taking out far more than they ever put in.
provolt
Re:Politics can never go away.. (Score:1)
Re:Look Vern, a troll! (Score:1)
Know whatta mean?
--
Re:Politics can never go away.. (Score:1)
That's why Capitalism is successful... it is built upon the idea that man is selfish and will act to preserve his own self-interests. Which is also why I believe libertarianism is the political system that holds the best hope for mankind. It recognizes that there can't be Utopia built by mankind. If we can't have a perfect society, at least we can have a free society where people can do what they want as long as they don't harm others.
Re:Ralph Nader -- Not a wasted vote (Score:1)
Wraithmaster
www.wraithmaster.com [wraithmaster.com] -- Chicken soup for the spleen.
Re:Purely, and simply, untrue (Score:1)
What I question is your claim that we have a relatively small beneficiary:payer ratio. I was under the impression that when the SSA was created the life expectancy was near to the age at which one was eligible to receive benefits. This points to the necessity of increasing costs substantially.
Del
troll on (Score:1)
- We have no freedom of speech
- , suffer cruel and unusual punishment
- , and no right to assemble.
So you've just got to find a way to fix the problem yourself, but don't whine like you need some sort of affirmative action or anything. Geez.Maybe so, but in the same way, if a regular user "trolls", as you mentioned, they will get their own punishment. See, the thing with trolling is that you're not talking about what the topic at hand is. If you want to create a forum where you can say whatever the hell you want to say, why don't you form something like, trolldot.org and then you can post topics and then post all the first posts you want. In a similar turn, we logged in users don't get the right to ever troll on first posting because you dang ACs usually get there first. What happened to sharing?
Cruel and unusual? Has anyone ever chopped off your head for this? And you can always create another account, or merely post again. But seeing as how this whole discussion forum you're complaining about was built by someone else, I think that the builder has his own rights to say what goes here and what doesn't. Do you systematically (or usually, if you will) allow people free reign to decide, say, what you eat and wear everyday? If you don't, then don't go around saying what Rob Malda & Co. should do with their website.
While they can presently hang out in a hidden sid, they have no gaurantee that sid will be around tomorrow. They also have no sahred history, the hidden sids expire posts every few weeks.
The same, therefore, applies to logged in users. If we tried to start a sid, it'd get gone no sooner or later than yours. And along the same lines, you are as much a part of a discussion as you make yourself. So if you go around pushing people, and they push back, don't whine that you're not liked. Lighten up. or Calm down. But if you choose to be a part of a discussion, then you have assembled - with all of the other minds of that discussion. You want seperatism (your "right to assemble"), but you also want acceptance and insertion into the whole (your "freedom of speech").
Runoff Elections (Score:1)
Re:Liar !! (Score:1)
[sarcasm] Obviously I can't look cool on slashdot, you can't see me!
Re:Purely, and simply, untrue (Score:1)
Re:troll on (Score:1)
Random thought - I'll throw it out there and see.. (Score:2)
I was reading the Onion/AV Club interview with Emo Phillips (read it here [theonion.com]), and he mentions a theory, that we still have that chimp portion of our brain that tells us, we may be the leader of the pack, until we get to middle age or so. Then the other monkeys perceive weakness, and tear apart the leader to make room for another. That particular gene memory turns on around middle age, and we start laying low, and getting out of the way.
I've been thinking about age issues lately (only 23 myself), and wondering why there are age limits built into the Constitution (I believe you have to be 40 or so). Originally, I thought it was because you were supposed to be older and wiser, but in light of this possible genetic memory, is it something else?
Many may have noticed that revolutionary, genius-level work seems to be done in a person's youth, and they become less revolutionary as adults. Linus invented Linux at a young age, Einstien discovered relativity fairly young, Alexander did all of his conquering before 30, and most of the slashdotter's are probably on the young end of the scale.
Is it possible that politics is the realm of the older types? That young people are much more self-assertive, interested in controlling themselves, and pushing their limits, rather than asserting control through cultural means? Think of just about any government, and it's the older who lead, and the younger who do stuff - go to war, innovate, riot, and act idealistically.
It's not just "artifical" governments like the US, but even natural ones - most primative tribes are lead by the elders, the Mafia bosses are often the oldest ones, the President of the company is often the oldest one there, etc.
Anyway, I don't have time right now to develop this line of thinking, but I would like some feedback, whether it strikes a chord or not. And, if you could, attach your age.
Social Security! (Score:1)
The fact is that the bastard boomers ran up a massive debt, a huge deficit and are now dumping it on us. The reason it is taboo is because the bastards dont see that they simply did not prepare for their own retirements, instead ran up this massive debt. The system is going bankrupt because they have not been paying the share of taxes that would be necessary to support them. This is not a surprise. Simple accounting can tell us that. Now we see the Republicrats pandering to them "we wont withdraw any SS benefits' ect ect - easy enough to say because WE ARE THE ONES WHO ARE GOING TO HAVE TO PAY FOR IT! .
It would have been nice if someone in their generation would have stood up and said "Are we really going to screw the next generation by forcing them to pay for our retirement while we pay these low taxes and enjoy these expensive social programs?"
Same thing is happening in Canada. Its a damn shame, my tax dollars and social systems and income (my entire financial life) will be straddled with the 'laziness' of the previous generation. Maybe with our prosperity (brought by tech & social advances) we could have done terrific things as a culture (our generation) - maybe we could have put a colony on Mars, made real advances in eliminating poverty and sickness. Instead we're going to be forced to subsidize the highlife of the previous generation. And we have no choice.
Its shamefull - and Im mad.
Re:Another generation (Score:1)
Data point: average life expectancy in the US is 76 years.
Maybe there are many people over 40 because there was a baby boom after WW2. But that's here in Europe, don't know if it's the same in the US.
Re:Partial privitisation of the SS (Score:3)
Hey guys, let's stop folks leaving to start their own businesses! They're too afraid of losing their medical insurance benefits, and couldn't guarantee to pay for any major illness/injury to themselves or their family if they were self-employed. Hell yes, why not? We don't need free enterprise, after all.
How's about making your quality of medical care dependent on your income? Sounds neat - no-one unemployed really needs a hip replacement, do they? Or cancer treatment. Let the cheap bastards die!
Anyone fancy making your right to a fair trial dependent on your income? Sure thing - you wouldn't be a crook, a murderer or a rapist if you were rich or came from a rich family, would you? It's only poor folks who do that. And if the victim is poor, they're obviously lying anyway.
I just hope you were trolling there. If you were serious, it's too scarey for words...
Grab.
Re:the anti-democratic US (Score:1)
Frankly, there are plenty of US citizens that wish the world would go do it's own thing and leave us the hell alone. If your leaders decided not to blindly follow the US's lead, that would be just dandy with me.
Re:Eff (Score:1)
Hate to break it to you but you are NOT a troll. Calling you a troll is like calling rocks intelligent.
Let's hear it for apathy! (Anyone? Hello?) (Score:1)
Re:The numbers don't add up (Score:1)
Will this make the rest of the system irrelevant? Probably not. Non-information resources are finite and we have to have some system to distribute them....
I don't buy this. What right does government have to distribute anyone's resources, and more than I have the right to "redistribute" your property to my back yard?
Command economies do not work. It's been well proven. They do not save the environment, they do not improve working conditions, and they certainly don't inprove the economy of production. Government "distribution" means stealing everyone's money and giving back half of it in exchange for absolute submission. The other half is split between official luxury and "reforming" those citizens who are not yet completely servile.
Re:Feh.. (Score:1)
Re:Purely, and simply, untrue (Score:1)
To lurch at least a little bit on-topic, I don't think it would be completely unheard of to increase the payroll tax for social security gradually, like they have finally agreed to do in Japan. I don't think it would have been political suicide a few years ago when people were feeling flush. Now, forget it.
Del
Re:Random thought - I'll throw it out there and se (Score:1)
Perhaps the lack of totally blinding idealism is wisdom.
Re:the anti-democratic US (Score:1)
AFAIK Jack Valenti. sp?? (Head of the MPAA) said that the DMCA does not go far enough and he wanted to model US copyright laws after those in Europe. Later, when asked about the suject he said Europe's copyright laws do not go far enough.
Re:Purely, and simply, untrue (Score:1)
That being said, I think the problem is that we have created a consumer culture where saving is not "cool." To simply stop paying those who did not have the foresight to save would be immoral, but launching a public education campaign encouraging people to save while phasing social security out over a few generations is simply good fiscal sense.
I am not a Republican, though many people find me to be fiscally conservative. There is no question that some people are simply incapable of earning enough to support themselves, for whatever reason, and require public assistance. However, creating a blanket social security system that is supposed to benefit people who earn more than enough to save a portion of their income is incredibly wasteful and unfair. I do not mind giving money to the government in the form of taxes so long as I can be sure that people who really need the money receive it, and that I am not just subsidizing people's stupid financial decisions. Retirement should be a priviledge, not a right.
Re:Purely, and simply, untrue (Score:1)
Re:Ralph Nader -- Not a wasted vote (Score:1)
because of the importance of the election this year (probable Supreme Court Justice replacement, close race, etc.), you should vote for Gore.
It is in the interest of both parties to maintain a level of controversy sufficient to keep the voters alert and receptive, but no more controversy than necessary, or their ideological monopoly might be jeopardized.
For example, the debates have all revolved around this great surplus we supposedly have. Each candidate has his own peculiar way to deal with it. It's absurd - if government takes more money than it has legally appropriated for its services, that money is a crime. It is stolen goods! No law provides for it!
Bush wants to give back a small percentage of it, mainly to the rich. Huh? Give back a portion of it? I thought Bush was supposed to be right-wing!
Gore wants to invest it in government programs. Huh? I thought Congress has to appropriate funds for programs! Maybe it'll be an "executive order", you know, a blatantly unconstitutional circumvention of the Constitution!
Just enough controversy to keep you voting.
Re:a quote (Score:1)
"If you don't turn on to politics, politics will turn on you."
Never have truer words been spoken.
Re:Politics can never go away.. (Score:1)
Re:Purely, and simply, untrue (Score:1)
This obligation is a common thread of all cultures at all times throughout history; denial of it is entirely a modern thing and a sign of how sick we all are these days. The only society which has ever not taken care of its elderly was some Inuit tribes, where euthanasia was practiced as a response to incredibly harsh conditions. It's a moral obligation.
All people have the opportunity to save during their working years; those who choose to live beyond their means and maintain a negative savings rate should not become the burden of those who are saving while working
The first half of your conditional statement is false. In any case, individual savings are an inefficient method of paying for retirement when comapred to general pooling; it's always the case that the bigger the pool the better, as it reduces the overall risk.
but launching a public education campaign encouraging people to save while phasing social security out over a few generations is simply good fiscal sense.
It isn't not really. The imbalance and intergenerational liability still exists; you're just changing the name of it from "payroll tax" to "lower wages due to higher coupon payments on corporate bonds, plus higher taxes due to higher payments on T-Bonds". The only thing that changes demographics, is changes in demographics, not changes in savings behaviour. This is general equilibrium thinking, which doesn't come easy to people who haven't trained in this specific field, by the way.
Retirement should be a priviledge, not a right.
As I say, this is an entirely modern view, and to me a weird one. The obligation of children to their parents is a fairly (I hope) uncontroversial principle. To say that retirement is a right rather than a privilege is just to generalise that, and to say that it is not an obligation which is attached to procreation.
Re:Partial privitisation of the SS (Score:2)
Or do you really think that Social Security funds Storm Troopers?
Taxes fund Storm Troopers.
Yeah, Storm Troopers.
Re:the anti-democratic US (Score:2)
Re:Eff (Score:1)
And now you've bit on his hook twice!
It's a good thing he's a 'catch and release' enthusiast, or you'd be flipping around in the bottom of the boat, or gasping for breath in a livewell right now.
All economies work that way (Score:1)
A command economy is the opposite end of the spectrum - the govt makes most resource allocation decisions, the market makes very few. But both systems, and everything in between, have resources that are distributed in accordance w/ govt rules. IMHO, a well-regulated capitalist system best distribution, but that's beside the point. Can the internet really end the need for some type of system along these lines?
Re: aargghhh - communism in theory... (Score:1)
the problem with saying "in theory, communism works" is that you're resting your theory on false/unproven assumptions - that the greedy, power-hungry parts of human nature can be redirected into the positive, communal, selfless acts required by communism. for life. and for the life of your children.
if you actually factor people into communism, it doesn't work even in theory. it's almost like saying, "star trek warp drive works ... in theory" - sure, if you just listen to the foofy explanations on the tv show, it makes sense. but when you factor real life back into the equation....
GAIN EVERLASTING LIFE! [alexchiu.com]
Re:People listen to politicians (Score:1)
So piss and moan if you like. It really doesn't matter.
an idea (Score:1)
You can't vote until you're 18. That means that if you've over 40, you appeal/can relate to a greater segment of the population.
As well, with an shorter average lifespan, maybe the point of having people over 40 was that if they did decide to turn the country into a dictatorship, there was a very finite amount of time they'd be in power.
Or maybe I'm wrong.
Re:Ralph Nader -- Not a wasted vote... maybe not (Score:1)
As far as I can tell, you should vote for the president who has the same ideals as you and will fight for you. Yadda yadda yadda, I know that doesn't mean anything, because in many ways it doesn't matter what the president wants; he has to work with congress. Well how the hell are you supposed to work with a congress when you bombard them with insults? It's one of the reasons McCain, while has many popular views by the public and does what he stands for, also has a lot of enemies on both sides of the party line. I'd *love* to hear exactly what the hell Nader would do as president. No, Nader isn't gonna win, sorry folks, but that's not why people are going to vote for him, they aren't that stupid. They want to send a message... blah! The message you are sending goes to congress. The same people you elected. The presidency is not the place to send your message, because, the president isn't all that powerful compared to congress. And if he did win, what good is Nader going to do? We don't live in a monarchy. I don't care what kind of 'agenda' the President is going to set; he has hundreds of congressmen to deal with. I'm sure congress, both sides of the line, would just love to try and work with Nader, especially after all the love and tender care he has given them. (sarcasm)
Congressme n tend to act when they think they are going to lose their jobs. And since congressmen make laws, and, well, that's a damn big fucking part of government, why don't you send a message to your congressman. They will listen.
I don't know about you, but I want a president who will fight for m--, er, oops, nix that: I want someone who can get something done. And if he doesn't do what I want him to do, I also have a representative in the house fighting for ME (I hope) and a senator too (although I know he isn't fighting for me... Santorum can blo, er =P) Voting for Nader is about as good as voting for Mickey Mouse. Not because what Nader stands for, or the fact that he can't possibly win, but for the fact that if he did win, he would probably pee his pants, cause gosh golly gee he really does have all that Commander in Chief style experience behind his consumer reports underwea--
-- i know i'm wrong. i'm just tired, so...
Wasting votes (Score:1)
Re:Politics can never go away.. (Score:1)
Laws which protect corrupt "office holders" are wrong and should not be obeyed.
I think it's perfectly reasonable to assassinate people who want to control our lives. It's self defence.
For example, if you took a fourth of my property, told me what I could and could not say, and insisted that you were doing the right thing, and that I was just too stupid to grasp the theory behind it (ring a bell?), I would have the right to kill you in self defence.
Why is it any different if Bill Clinton does it? Would it be any different if Lenin did it? If Stalin did it? If Hitler did it? If Mao Tse-tung did it? If Pol Pot did it?
The political theories granting power to each were equally robust!
Do you think the world would be a better place if we, the people, had not sheepishly accepted their claims to power? Would the world be a better place if we interpreted any claim to power as an assault on our freedom and crushed it?
As Thomas Paine wrote, "A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defence of custom. But the tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts than reason."
Re:Another generation (Score:1)
The problem is that we can't wait 20 or 30 years for those in power to understand things online. If corporations and governments succeed in their efforts of today to discourage freedom of speech, destroy open protocols, and remove rights like Fair Use (which have major consequences outside of the digital world too), we will have to work ten times harder and still have a lot of luck in order to reverse those changes in 20 years. We need action now by everyone who has any input, no matter how small, into the political process.
Re:Ralph Nader -- Not a wasted vote (Score:2)
http://www.michaelmoore.com/aint.html
Re:Purely, and simply, untrue (Score:1)
Even to accept that we should care for OUR elderly, I don't have any at present. Therfore, you are forcing me to pay for YOUR elderly. I call that theft. If I were to rob a bank and give the money to charity, say one that benefits the elderly, I would still be stealing. And I would still go to jail for it. How is this different that what Social Security does to us? I don't see a difference. Government should be held to the same laws we citizens are. If I am not allowed to steal, then they aren't. The reason for the theft is irrelevant.
I agree with your assessment of SS, it is an intergenerational transfer of wealth. And once the number of people in the receiving generation reaches a certain point the burden on the sending generation will go up to unsustainable levels without huge taxation on the senders. This is simple addition.
Yes, I agree we should care for our parents as they age. However, it is the PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CHILD to do so. That's right, something we have forgotten in this country for far too long. PERSONAL responsibility. The child can solicit help from society as needed, however, it should not be guaranteed. As things stand, with my high tax burden I am having a difficult time managing to save for my OWN retirement, let alone to be able to support my parents in 20 years or so when they need it.
If you want to continue to steal from me to finance people's retirement I ask that you do so honestly. Hold the gun yourself and demand my money. What? Not willing to hold me up yourself? Then don't ask Government to do it for you.
BTW: If you do, you'd better hope your first shot doesn't miss, mine won't.
Re:Eff (Score:1)
He's a troll.
And now you've bit on his hook twice!
Trolls are bright people and usually disguise their trolls as informed, opinionated posts to lure people in. "FP" isn't a troll, no matter how hard you try.
So, considering that your post is likely the troll and not his, consider this my bite.
Wrong. (Score:2)
>this intergenerational transfer.
Wrong.
The simple, logical, and moral alternative is for individuals to take responsibility for their own actions; and not to assume that they can goof off their whole lives and and expect to become a parasite in soceity's bowels when they finally realise how bad they fscked themselves.
I've done the math; first as an exercise demanded by my college ecomonics professor against what I EXPECTED to be earning when I entered the work force; then on my own, once I did enter the work force.
Even if I make the totally unrealistic assumption that my income will never increase between now and the time I turn 65; the 5% gross that I drop into my 401K will return, by an order of magnitude, far more than I would be eligable to receive were I drawing social security. I beleive 12x was the exact factor... and that's just withdrawing intrest after I turn 65... that's WITHOUT touching so much as a cent of my principle!!!
And that's JUST the 401K, which I basiclly drop money into and ignore. That does NOT include my other investments which I manage more proactively. Nor does it include the vesting (current, or future) of my options. Nor does it include increases in salary and the corresponding increase in 401K contributions. To be fair, it does not include inflation either; but I'm confident that I'll beat that curve as well.
Were I able to opt out of social security and keep the money the government confiscates with each paycheck, I would do so in a heartbeat. I'm already doing better, with a SMALLER initial stake. If I invested that extra cash every month, I could damn near live like a king once I'm retired (or retire early, and just live like a duke).
I'm only 24 right now, so no matter who wins, Gore *OR* shrub, I have zero confidence that social security will be there for me to collect once I'm 65. But, you know what? I don't care. In fact, I welcome its demise... better sooner than later. I'd applaud if it were abolished NOW.
Thing is, I'm taking responsibility for my OWN life. I do *NOT* expect, nor want, the government to babysit me.
john
Resistance is NOT futile!!!
Haiku:
I am not a drone.
Remove the collective if
Re:Eff (Score:1)
Goddamn it I forgot to close a tag. <sigh> And now the anti-spam/anti-lamer filter is kicking in.
He's a troll.
And now you've bit on his hook twice!
No, he's not. Since when is trying to talk to someone considered having been trolled? Your post is more the trollish kind.
Trolls are usually bright people and tend to disguise their trolls as informed, opinionated posts with which they lure people into an angry, knee-jerk reply. "FP" isn't a troll, no matter how hard you try and say it is, and my response was neither angry nor knee-jerk.
So, considering that your post is likely the troll and not his, consider this my non angry, non knee-jerk reply "bite".
Re:Ralph Nader -- Not a wasted vote... maybe not (Score:2)
Then you go on to childishly insult Nader.
Nader isn't the *only* Green candidate. There are Green senate candidates also. And guess what? That is how you change the system. Not by sitting on your haughty ass saying to freshmen that voting their conscience doesn't matter, and that they should just lay down and vote for one of the pre-fabricated candidates. THAT is wasting a vote.
If you have any question about what Nader would do in office, why don't you go to his site and find out: http://www.votenader.org
Yes, perhaps he might not roll over like a wimp and pander to big interests. I guess that's the "cost" of change.
Social Security is *not* going bankrupt (Score:2)
Summary: the prediction that Social Security will go bust assumes that economic growth over the next 75 years will be less than half what it was for the last 75. There's no justification for such a gloomy prediction, and if it comes true, then how can the stock market do any better? The article also addresses streetlawyer's "dependency ratio" argument.
Even if it turns out that Social Security is underfunded, Congress could patch the system perfectly well by making more income subject to Social Security tax (right now, wages over about $70K/year, and all capital gains, are exempt from the tax), by allowing in more (young, working) immigrants, or by pushing the retirement age up a year or two.
--
Re:Look Vern, a troll! (Score:1)
Re:All economies work that way (Score:1)
Capitalism, even the very laissez-faire variety, is a distribution of resources according to govt control.
I don't understand. Capitalism is simply freedom mapped onto the ecomomic domain. It means I can freely enter into contractual agreements with whomever I please. Government does not control my economic interactions, but it may be appealed to for the resolution of contract disputes. Under socialism, there would be no private (individual-individual) disputes, because there would be no private contracts to dispute. Rather, all contracts would be with the government, and since what differntiates goverment from business is that government can use force to impose its will, there can be no dispute, only coercion. That system sucks infinitely more than paying a streamlined judiciary and police force to enforce free, private contracts. Read Soviet history. A lack of clear property rights is an elevator to hell.
have resources that are distributed in accordance w/ govt rules.
In a free market economy, there can be no goverment interference beyond arbitrating disputes. Otherwise it is no longer free - it's like Big Brother demanding "voluntary censorship" from Hollywood. It's a farce.
Now, yeah, if I "distribute my resources", so to speak, by infringing someone's rights, then that would be the domain of government. However, that is not, in my opinion, any different than enforcing a contract. In economic terms, you and I have an implicit contract forbidding each party from infringing upon the rights of the other. When one of us breaks that contract, then the other's obligations are dissolved - i.e., if you decide to whack me over the head with a 2x4 because I'm ranting, I can kill you, because you have violated that agreement. We entrust government with the power necessary to intervene, if I'm too weak to protect my rights.
Can the 'Net end the need for a government? Well, is there really a need for government in the first place? That's one hell of a question, and I don't have the answer, but I think there is a need for a small, trusted judiciary with a small, trusted legal code. The internet can certainly streamline the process of arbitrating disputes and enforcing rights. Secure cryptographic systems could allow a miniscule government to resolve disputes and mobilize police in an incredibly efficient manner. It could probably be done for an insignificant amount of money.
Re:Purely, and simply, untrue (Score:1)
Historically speaking, did the support of the elderly typically consume 13% of the typical household's income?
My take is that we need to move from a transfer payment to an investment with a reasonable return to make Social Security viable. To say otherwise is to use the same arguments that those who say we shouldn't pay down the national debt use.
Re:People listen to politicians (Score:1)
The United States has never been a pure democracy, that wasn't even the intent of the founders of this republic.
Don't appeal to the will of the "founding fathers" to defend a political system. Sure, you can present the ideas they expoused, but ideas have neither origins nor owners.
I don't know if we've prevented the beer-scarfing masses from voting. The petty, hollow issues of our two candidates seem to compliment the petty, hollow lives of beef-scarfers. Bush is an ignorant beer-scarfer!
Politicians feign concern, get elected, and gorge themselves on your money and your freedom. Some representation.
So piss and moan if you like. It really doesn't matter.
That's just inaccurate. First we piss and moan, next we get angry, and then we get even.
The political machine (Score:1)
Re:the anti-democratic US (Score:1)
Going to Europe as a kid and seeing how much freer the people seemed to be than over here is when I realized that Europe was how a democracy worked.
But be careful because it's not the US gov't that'll expand the Republic to include Europe it's the corporations and Hollywood that'll demonize European politics the fact that Europe is looking to implement a DMCA style copyright isn't coming from the fact that Europe is looking to the US as a leader but that your leaders are looking to US corporations to expand into economy. In which they'll start spending major bucks on the European Goverment to make it the apart of the US Republic!!!
Re:All economies work that way (Score:1)
Under socialism,
I never said anything nice about hard-core socialism - it really sucks. I'm not a commie, etc. I think I said "IMHO, a well-regulated capitalist system best distribution", where there should have been a few more words, i.e. "IMHO, a well-regulated capitalist system is the best distribution".
Capitalism is simply freedom mapped onto the ecomomic domain. It means I can freely enter into contractual agreements with whomever I please. Government does not control my economic interactions, but it may be appealed to for the resolution of contract disputes.
I don't think that's totally accurate - it defines freedom in a sense that assumes a lot of rights and corresponding restrictions, especially the right to own property and the right not to have the bigger guy take it away from you, which corresponds to a prohibition against taking other people's crap. You can't talk about any type of restriction without an enforcing entitity, so even in an ultra-capitalist world we have to have govts. These things are complex social ideas tied up with the idea of govt itself.
That system sucks infinitely more than paying a streamlined judiciary and police force to enforce free, private contracts. Read Soviet history. A lack of clear property rights is an elevator to hell.
Absolutely. The only question is, does capitalism without an active govt suck less? If so, how much less does it suck? If you look at 17-19th century history, you get some nasty stuff - sweatshops, the enclosure movement, shitty life for everybody except the top 0.5%, and shitty economies. Markets are great, but they do a poor job of regulating themselves, and the market cycles in the 1800s were so extreme they did too much harm - that's why we have the Fed do magic tricks with money today - that modest govt intervention keeps capitalism from being hurt by its own stupidity without losing the benefits. I could keep ranting about crap like the environment, etc. but this is enough.
Re:Wrong. (Score:1)
I thought over for an hour and have come to the following example. Say, there are 50 thirty-years old working today and 1 baby. Let's assume that all of the workers save half of their income. Thirty years later, they will all retired and one person will have to support all of the retirees (unless he killed them all
What it means is: social security is, in term of macroeconomics, more than a matter of personal "saving" and "investment". It's a matter of - I hate to repeat his word
Personally, I find the whole thing very depressing. Since my simple example seem to show that unless there are adequate increase of productivity (luckily there should be), my saving will mean little. I'll just have more *paper* money to compete less *real* goods...
The only personal solution (without social intervention from the big scary government) will be to find an investment that will maintain its real value while I retire (30+ years later) - a bunker of canned food sounds will be nice. Boy, I need a Master degree in Economics and a crystal ball.
Now, I need to think very carefully about my retirement. Have a nice day!!
Re:People listen to politicians (Score:1)
Do you speak for the masses or some claptrap thing like that?
Re:Ralph Nader -- Still a wasted vote (Score:1)
You say that "..if enough people do as you should, vote their feelings, then perhaps enough people will vote for that candidate.." A sufficient number of people won't do that, so your point is moot.
XOXOX
Klaw
Mainstream media only part of the picture (Score:1)
IMO elections may appear more mindless lately simply because media is fragmenting, and people are supplementing mainstream news with specialized media sources. You read Focus on the Family or The Advocate to find out about candidates positions on homosexuality (if you care) and read USA Today to find out about common-denominator factors that transcend "issues": character, confidence, and hairstyle/wardrobe analysis.
I think that Gore and Bush probably do differ more significantly than they'll let on to USA Today, but you have to look at not-widely-publicized interviews with specialist publications to see those differences.
(That being said, the two candidates are still too close together for my tastes and I'm not voting for either one. I'd rather help build a third party so I can vote for someone I genuinely like in 2040!)
the 401(k) vs. Social Security fallacy (Score:2)
Second, as streetlawyer pointed out, any way you slice it, today's retirees depend on the productivity of today's workers. Thought experiment: You have a 401(k) consisting of nothing but Microsoft stock. Suddenly, all Microsoft employees quit, and Microsoft can't find anyone else willing to work for them. What's going to happen to Microsoft's stock value?
--
Re:All economies work that way (Score:1)
I'm not a commie, etc.
Didn't mean to come across that way. America has a mixed economy; I was just bringing up the two extremes.
You can't talk about any type of restriction without an enforcing entitity, so even in an ultra-capitalist world we have to have govts. These things are complex social ideas tied up with the idea of govt itself.
That's for sure. And they get far trickier when government is tasked with enforcing equality. I don't even know where to start.
The only question is, does capitalism without an active govt suck less? If so, how much less does it suck?
The number of people who die under a regime is a relatively objective measure of suckiness. By that measure, socialism easily takes the prize. But "socialist states" are usually far from socialist, because true socialism (especially communism) has proved an unreachable ideal. If we had a black box that could eat everyone's money and fairly redistribute it, then communism might have a chance. Even then it would have to be enforced by the black box as well.
Is "true capitalism" an unreachable ideal as well? I think the libertarian fantasy of buying "protection services" and other core government functions off the market are likely unreachable. Would a more tempered libertarianism necessarily be unstable and calamitous? I'm not sure that the Industrial Revolution is a valid example of capitalist catastrophe - working in the factories really was better than the farm (if perhaps only for the change of scenery, a valid reason) and the labor pool was huge. More likely, it was industry working in collusion with the state to ban labor unions and prevent fair negotiations that was responsible. That's obviously a "Buchananite" fascist phemonenon, not a libertarian one.
I don't know if government has really done all that much to stablilze the economy, but I really don't know much economic history. It's hard for me to assess the impact it had. I would think it's hard for anyone to assess.
As far as the environment is concerned, one only need look at Russia to see an example of government intervention hurting the situation - every other concern was neglected in favor of production. The environment was completely ignored, because industry had no incentive to even maintain its own land. Capitalism avoids this neatly, because it's probably in my interest to keep my property unpolluted. Government certainly has less of an interest.
IMHO, the question of the government's place has always been more simplistic. Government is allowed to do things which non-government entities cannot do. This is a BIG advantage, and a BIG risk. Government is unique in its powers. So it is essential to limit the domain of the government to only the things which absolutely must be regulated by it. I feel government has a place safeguarding rights and enforcing contracts. In other fields, I think it is too much of a liability, and I think that government should not be involved in affairs which a normal corporation or group could suffice. Letting government mess with things like prescription drug prices or education is like paying a soldier with a Kalashnikov rifle to open my garage door for me. Sure, he's big, and he could easily do the job, but having him around is just too dangerous. It's insane.
Re:People listen to politicians (Score:1)
I don't speak for the masses any more than anyone else does.
You asserted that republics were superior to democracies, and you did not substantiate that claim, save for an allusion to the authority of the "founding fathers".
You also asserted that political discontent is ineffectual. I disagree - people who believe the political system never changes are naive. If you annoy the masses enough, they grow impatient.
If the number of people in prison for drug offences doubles to a million (and it very well could in a decade) I think "the masses" will do something about it. You disagree?
Uh, yeah, whatever. (Score:1)
Riiiiiiight.
"You want me to build a what?" -- Noah
Re:People listen to politicians (Score:1)
What exactly is that link [abidingtruth.com] of yours, anyway? What is your relation to it?
From the page:
Do you really believe this bullshit?
Re:Random thought - I'll throw it out there and se (Score:1)
Other than that, I don't think that the trend you're seeing is all that strong... First off, the age requirement for President is 35. It's not that old... of course, the youngest president was Kennedy, and he was, IIRC, in his early 40's. There just aren't that many young people with the political connections to run for President. Perhaps that's a more important issue... Alexander, well, Alexander the Great died at 32 on a military campaign; I don't think he would've stopped for quite a while if he hadn't died of fever.
Of course, Edison wasn't at all a young man when he did the light bulb or many of his more successful inventions. As for war, well, the most devestating wars we have known were propagated not by the youth, but by the elders in politics.
I think that the young act idealistically due to a lack of world experience, and a lack of responsibilities. Tie down a college age revolutionary with a family, children, and a mortgage, and you'll see the idealism disappear quickly. With age, OTOH, comes experience (the ability to recognize a mistake when you make it again), but more importantly, connections, friends, and support.
Oh, and as for age: you're older than I am... but not by much. :)
Re:All economies work that way (Score:1)
More likely, it was industry working in collusion with the state to ban labor unions and prevent fair negotiations that was responsible. That's obviously a "Buchananite" fascist phemonenon, not a libertarian one.
Yeah, that's pretty much what I was getting at. The problem kicks in when we corporations buying the govt protection from workers, which imbalances wealth more, which means the corps buy the govt more...
Capitalism avoids this neatly, because it's probably in my interest to keep my property unpolluted.
Yeah, but what happens when my pollution mostly effects others, tragedy of the commons-style? When a power plant puts lots of nasty stuff in the air, sure it affects the owners/employees, etc. but not very much. To them, the benefits of a little pollution are outweighed by the economic gains from that pollution. They're not evil - this is normal human behavior. But other people get affected by this pollution, whether they want to or not, whether they use the energy or not. I suppose they could all sue the power company and the refineries, and on and on - regulation is a better solution, it's cheaper and gives less money to lawyers than a class action suit against every single company.
I don't know if government has really done all that much to stablilze the economy, but I really don't know much economic history. It's hard for me to assess the impact it had. I would think it's hard for anyone to assess.
We all know about the Great Depression, but it's called the "Great" Depression because in the 1800s there were regular depressions, not recessions. (A recession is a lot less bad - distinction is sort of arbitrary, I could get technical, but no point). The boom-bust cycle that goes with markets had very high points and very low points. Imagine a whole economy with the stability of the dot-coms - wouldn't be very good. After the depression, the Federal Reserve took an active role in trying keep the booms and busts to tolerable levels. This is why Greenspan plays with interest rates and buys and sells money(really) - to regulate the business cycle. Since the Fed stepped up to the plate, we haven't seen another depression.
Re:Ralph Nader (Score:1)
American Politics An Outside Perspective (Score:1)
The more I look into the American Political system the more that it strikes me as badly done.
The things that strike me as odd:
Uncompulsory voting is thought of as a good thing. This is bizarre, although I can see it's point. What it leaves out however is that this means that only someone with an agenda will vote, and the silent majorities views are ignored
Prefferential Voting is unheard of. This is why Nader's vote is wasted. This is why any third vote is wasted. And this is why the two party system will stay a two party system. While either of the two parties can ignore the fringe parties they can stand on their own idiotic platforms. If you could vote Nader, or Gore if Nader won't get in would you vote that way, rather then having to decide on the basis of whether one will succeed? There are working systems arround that do this.
Presidential Power is overwhelming. This leaves one man with no real checks and balances running one arm of your government. Why? Under a nation at war this makes sense, otherwise it is two much power in one set of hands. This is also what makes the position attractive to greedy evil men, as well as those who wish to combat evil greedy men.
The social contract between the people and the governing body over them appears to be made of tissue paper in the american model. Once you elect your surrogate King there is no real control over him by the people. What was that quote again... by the people for the people....
Religious and Sexual Preferrences seem to be carped on extensively for the position of president. Why does who he fucks, and who he worships matter? If a bisexual Satanist was going to make a good president he would never get in because of the personality level of the political race, even if he was going to make a stellar president in comparrison to the other choices.
Social Security is not an evil word. Do you want people homeless and starving on the streets? Do you care about your fellow citizens? The answer is a working Social Security system. Answer this, would you prefer a tax cut over shovelling the remains of the disenfranchised off your lawn?
To put this in perspective, I come from a country that has a working compulsory prefferential election. That has no president, the powers of the president being split between the prime minister, the governer general, and the head of the armed forces. The social contract between the people and the people with political power is strong, if a little rocky. And no one cares if a politician is laid. I have no idea what religious preference most of the politicians have, it is a moot point, no one really cares.
As for social security. I had a child on public health a few years ago. With top flight medical attention (there were complications) hospital stays and no health insurance. All up it would have cost me about $100. There is no real homeless problem, although there are homeless people. There is currently compulsory superannuation, meaning the old age pension will be less of a deal in 20 years time, though it is an economic backlog until then. There is (free-ish) tertiary education for anyone who wants it.
All this means that I get somewhat weirded out when people want to go to the US
VeltyenOn a side note, the original presidents of the US weren't actually christian. What happened?
As an un-american diatribe I expect this to be modded down, much as the current political debate only has two people.
Politics in the Pax Americana (Score:1)
5% of the population is all fired up about imagined conspiraries in the most media-surveilled place on Earth. Some folks worry about "partisanship bickering" but like that neither party has enough votes to push through their lame ideas.
My point? Enjoy these times. Make some money, drive a big car; it won't last forever....
David S.
Re:American Politics An Outside Perspective (Score:1)
Uncompulsory Voting: Compulsory anything is bad. This is a free country, not a free-to-do-what-you're-told country.
Prefferential Voting: This has its good and bad points. One of the bad points is that tiny minorities have power far beyond their numbers. I'm not really equipped to make a full analysis of the pros and cons though.
Presidential Power: The president is not supposed to have as much power as he does now. Things are slowly moving back toward where they're supposed to be.
The social contract: This is a subject that mostly never comes up in the US.
Religious and Sexual Preferrences: This is harder to explain because it depends on what you mean by "a good president". In peacetime, the president doesn't do much that can be quantitatively measured. So unless there's a catastrophe, the performance of the president is always in doubt.
So we have to make qualitative judgements. And Americans like to tell our children that if they do the right things, they'll be successful. So when the most successful person in government is a bad guy who does the wrong things, what do we say?
If it's OK for the president to be a bisexual Satanist, why isn't it ok for your son? Why isn't it better to be a bisexual Satanist like the president?
So we want the president to be a good man as well as a good administrator.
Social Security: No one starves in the US. And it's not care to just give people stuff. When people can't earn a living, they need help to learn to earn a living. They don't need lifetime handouts.
People who can pay for themselves are always better off than people who need government or charity help. Always. And in America, the vast, vast majority can eventually become able to pay for themselves. That needs to be the primary goal of government social programs.
The short answer is that we want things to be good, not just good enough.
Homelessness isn't a problem in the US either. The homeless don't want to live like the rest of us. If they did, they'd get a job and a place to live. Anyone who wants to do a job in the US can get a job. (This wasn't always the case, but it has been for about 13 of the last 15 years.)
People don't come to the US to be taken care of. People come to the US to become wealthy, to start a business, to own a house, and to leave the business and the house to their children.
Does that help?