Dem Debates

[MrSparkle001]

Originally Posted by Lune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You guys know how efficient nature is, and that efficiency is what made market capitalism such a magnificent system to carry humanity through industrialization.

Also consider how fucking disgusting and depraved nature is. Consider the Coot, which is a duck-like waterbird. Coots will lay far more eggs than they could ever possibly feed, under the assumption that predators will eat some of them. Oftentimes, that doesn't happen, and 10-12 little coots will hatch that the parents can't feed. Over the next few weeks, when some of the coots ask for food, the parents will peck them. The weakest coots get pecked with increasing aggression until their parents either peck them to death, or they stop asking for food and slowly starve to death. This will occur until only enough young coots remain for the parents to feed, sometimes as little as 2-3.

This sickening brutality is universal in nature. Primates will team up and murder social outcasts and the weak. Baby birds will push their weaker siblings out of the nest. Starving bears will eat their extra cubs. Male ruminants will spar for a mate to the point of exhaustion or injury. The winner mates, the vulnerable loser is eaten by a predator.

This system facilitated biological evolution, which is ultimately an efficient and necessary process. But when you start applying human morality and utilitarianism to this, it begins to unravel a little. Humans have the capacity and the impetus to minimize harm at the cost of some of nature's depravity, and also some of its efficiency. Consider this:

The free market approach to the case of coots is business as usual; the natural, efficient order of things. Lay a surplus of eggs to hedge against predation, and cull the weak in order to survive. Sacrifice no growth or competitiveness for the sake of "humanity".

But the miracle of humanity is the capacity for abstract thought, and therefore abstract policy, providing a new approach, government. It brings the ability to make a rule: Coots may now only incubate as many eggs as they have the capacity to feed. Now, yes, you have a higher chance of any given coot losing all of their eggs to predators. Evolution and growth are now moderately less efficient. However, you no longer commit wanton murder and savagery at the opening of every new generation.

I would contend that while capitalism was a necessary and beneficial medium for the conveyance of civilization from primitive civilization to industrialization, its usefulness has diminished. As technology makes society exponentially more productive, and scarcity of resources becomes less an issue, we have the luxury of protecting human life from being ground to pulp by the economic machine. I think many places have already realized this (Denmark, Germany, Australia, etc), as their functional and highly effective governments create policy that make human life safer and more enjoyable, sometimes at the cost of efficiency.

And guess what? Does their entire society implode? Does everybody stop working and stay home and live off neetbux? No. They continue to pull ahead of places like the USA that are stuck in the industrial age with an industrial mindset. In many ways, the United States is, therefore, still a developing nation. Consider a world where we've managed to automate resource production and the vast majority of our services. Do you still think every human still needs to work 40 hours a week to drive consumption, profits, and capitalist machinery? What happens when artificial intelligence exists, and scarcity is no longer a thing? Is the free market still relevant? If so, how can you say that it's just as relevant now, as it was 100 years ago, with how productive we are? Can you even consider that maybe it's time to begin the transition and rethink the way we do things?

[b]Of course, all of this depends on a sophisticated culture with respect for the rule of law, hard work, etc etc, and culture goes a long way toward explaining differences between denmark / USA / nigeria etc, but that's another discussion.[b]

The bold part at the end is what's important. Are those countries plagued with people who don't contribute to the system but instead leech off it, sometimes for generations? That's the problem with the US, and it's a cultural problem. They don't want to move away from a welfare existence. It happens in urban cities, in rural trailer parks, in our deserts etc. Too many people just don't give a shit.

Bernie wants to model the US after the nordic socialist systems. Well guess what, it won't work here.

I am not saying the gross wealth inequality doesn't contribute. It's plain wrong for .1% of the population to own nearly 90% of the wealth. Oh, and raising the minimum wage to like $15/hr isn't the answer. A massive, radical cultural change is the answer, and I fear we won't see it in our lifetimes.

[Lune]

Originally Posted by MrSparkle001 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The bold part at the end is what's important. Are those countries plagued with people who don't contribute to the system but instead leech off it, sometimes for generations? That's the problem with the US, and it's a cultural problem. They don't want to move away from a welfare existence. It happens in urban cities, in rural trailer parks, in our deserts etc. Too many people just don't give a shit.

Bernie wants to model the US after the nordic socialist systems. Well guess what, it won't work here.

I am not saying the gross wealth inequality doesn't contribute. It's plain wrong for .1% of the population to own nearly 90% of the wealth. Oh, and raising the minimum wage to like $15/hr isn't the answer. A massive, radical cultural change is the answer, and I fear we won't see it in our lifetimes.

You're right and that's why I included that part in there. One thing I want to point out though is the extent to which critics of welfare totally fabricate the nature of a 'welfare class'. It just doesn't exist the way fiscal conservatives tend to envision it. The image of a 'welfare queen' totally overpowers the narrative and twists it away from the reality of the situation, which is that life with welfare in the US is a miserable existence that nobody aspires to, not even your biggest, fattest, saddest, most desperate lowlifes, and native citizens don't tend to build their goals and aspirations in life around the availability of welfare bucks.

I'm curious to see what happens in Germany, with a robust system of welfare, including BASIC FUCKING INCOME for young people. How will they handle this wave of welfare-seeking Syrian immigrants. Will the Syrians become culturally German, integrate, and become productive citizens? Were they really just looking for welfare, intending to milk Germany's benefits? Can a compassionate economic system with generous welfare turn a backwards culture into a progressive one?

[MrSparkle001]

Originally Posted by Lune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You're right and that's why I included that part in there. One thing I want to point out though is the extent to which critics of welfare totally fabricate the nature of a 'welfare class'. It just doesn't exist the way fiscal conservatives tend to envision it. The image of a 'welfare queen' totally overpowers the narrative and twists it away from the reality of the situation, which is that life with welfare in the US is a miserable existence that nobody aspires to, not even your biggest, fattest, saddest, most desperate lowlifes, and native citizens don't tend to build their goals and aspirations in life around the availability of welfare bucks.

They don't aspire to a life of welfare because they don't aspire to anything except becoming a rapper or pro athlete. Every single inmate I've ever encountered has thought he had the talent to make it big as a rap star, and they'd all practice it like they were going to demo for a label executive in a few days. I'm dead serious, every single one. They have no aspiration, no motivation, no drive, no initiative, absolutely no appreciation for education, and in fact a general disdain for anything considered "white" or "the man". If it ain't part of the hood it ain't no good and will ruin your street cred. Their families, if they have any, are on welfare and food stamps, at least half are incarerated, and very few make it through high school.

I've driven through areas where groups of able-bodied adults were literally standing on the curb in their own garbage at 2 PM on a weekday (Paterson NJ fyi). I swear it was almost comical. Don't get me started on the crap I saw and heard in the county jail during my fairly brief career as a C.O. Even if I told you you wouldn't believe me, but trust me when I say there is indeed a "welfare class" and they find it distasteful and sometimes downright offensive to be anything more than that, unless it's a rapper or pro athlete.

It's a cultural problem. A big one. At this point it's an insurmountable problem but who knows what will happen in a few decades.

(I have no first-hand experience with the rural welfare class AKA "white trash" but I know they also exist, just not here where I live.)

Democrats don't have the solution. Republicans don't have the solution. Money isn't the solution. Education isn't the solution. A radical shift in culture is the only solution. They have to want it and value it.

[iruinedyourday]

Originally Posted by MrSparkle001 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

They don't aspire to a life of welfare because they don't aspire to anything except becoming a rapper or pro athlete. Every single inmate I've ever encountered has thought he had the talent to make it big as a rap star, and they'd all practice it like they were going to demo for a label executive in a few days. I'm dead serious, every single one. They have no aspiration, no motivation, no drive, no initiative, absolutely no appreciation for education, and in fact a general disdain for anything considered "white" or "the man". If it ain't part of the hood it ain't no good and will ruin your street cred. Their families, if they have any, are on welfare and food stamps, at least half are incarerated, and very few make it through high school.

you're describing pretty much everyone no matter what their heritage so long as they're poor and born in america.

hmm funny how all the people from even worse economic standing that move to america work 3 jobs and send half their money to their families.

hmm makes ya think maybe we've beaten any idea or hope that you can work your way out of poverty in Americans with police batons and the media.

[Orruar]

Originally Posted by MrSparkle001 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The bold part at the end is what's important. Are those countries plagued with people who don't contribute to the system but instead leech off it, sometimes for generations? That's the problem with the US, and it's a cultural problem. They don't want to move away from a welfare existence. It happens in urban cities, in rural trailer parks, in our deserts etc. Too many people just don't give a shit.

Bernie wants to model the US after the nordic socialist systems. Well guess what, it won't work here.

I am not saying the gross wealth inequality doesn't contribute. It's plain wrong for .1% of the population to own nearly 90% of the wealth. Oh, and raising the minimum wage to like $15/hr isn't the answer. A massive, radical cultural change is the answer, and I fear we won't see it in our lifetimes.

And the worst part about it all is that if/when we try European style socialism here and it fails miserably due to our demographics, it may cause us to push too far back in the opposite direction. Certainly some kind of safety net is ideal from both a moral and practical sense, but if it's done in the wrong way, people may then throw out the baby with the bath water. Currently the government incentivizes those who are least able to take care of themselves to reproduce as early and often as possible and it discourages marriage for those receiving benefits, leading to more and more children being raised by a single parent. This is not a sustainable pattern for a society and it has to change.

[iruinedyourday]

Excellent post lune! What do you do for a living? You probably deserve a raise.

[Lune]

Originally Posted by iruinedyourday [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Excellent post lune! What do you do for a living? You probably deserve a raise.

I'm a physical therapy student, tutor, admissions ghostwriter, and pt tech. I also live in my moms basement and play elf sims

[Raev]

What matters is not Bernie Sanders internal moral compass regarding political corruption but what his policies will do to fix it. Checking his website, his only goal is to overturn 'Citizens United' with a constitutional amendment. I'm sure he'll have no trouble getting that past an army of Wall Street lobbyists. And even if he did, it will do nothing to fix SEC regulators leaving government for cush jobs at Goldman Sachs, or the Clintons handing out favors for companies that hire Bill to give a 1 hour speech for $1.5 million. Meanwhile his expansion of government will give them more power to 'adjust' things in their favor.

Your position on Fukushima is equally strange. You specifically claimed that 'government ... performs this role very well in most other advanced nations, where people are generally happy, healthy, and prosperous'. Yet the Fukushima disaster could easily have been prevented with simple logic: don't build nuclear plants on earthquake fault lines. Your more general position (the important thing is that everyone is a 80 hour a week wage slave!) is equally puzzling.

TLDR: you need to stop pushing your value system on other people. Not everyone wants the same things.

[Lune]

Originally Posted by Raev [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

What matters is not Bernie Sanders internal moral compass regarding political corruption but what his policies will do to fix it. Checking his website, his only goal is to overturn 'Citizens United' with a constitutional amendment. I'm sure he'll have no trouble getting that past an army of Wall Street lobbyists. And even if he did, it will do nothing to fix SEC regulators leaving government for cush jobs at Goldman Sachs, or the Clintons handing out favors for companies that hire Bill to give a 1 hour speech for $1.5 million. Meanwhile his expansion of government will give them more power to 'adjust' things in their favor.

I'm not naive enough to believe:

1. That Bernie could even win this election, or

2. That if he did, he could triumph over the establishment and implement his policies

What's important is that his victory would be a source of advocacy, and he has admitted this. People need to realize that, as the electorate, the responsibility for these issues ultimately goes back to them, and the extent to which they are informed.

Furthermore, do you have a better alternative? What are you going to do, elect Clinton, Bush, Trump, or a libertarian? How would that be better? Randian libertarian objectivism a la Alan Greenspan is a large part of what got us into this mess, and it's a philosophy that is still largely embodied by the fiscal right and libertarians.

But then, I guess I can understand how you think libertarianism will solve our problems when you simply refuse to accept the fact that all our advanced peers are doing better than us in nearly every metric of prosperity except aggregate total wealth and military power. Even Alan Greenspan came out and admitted he was wrong for promoting objectivist fiscal policy.

When the person championing a certain economic philosophy for several decades admits it was wrong, how do you still promote it?

Originally Posted by Raev [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

TLDR: you need to stop pushing your value system on other people. Not everyone wants the same things.

It's a thread for discussing our opinions on the issue. I recognize that Bernie isn't going to be elected quite simply because most people either don't agree with him or don't know about him. That doesn't make it any less enjoyable to discuss. Nobody has ever been convinced of anything by rhetoric on the internet unless they are young or are a woman. People can believe what they want.

[iruinedyourday]

Originally Posted by Lune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I'm not naive enough to believe:

1. That Bernie could even win this election, or

2. That if he did, he could triumph over the establishment and implement his policies

This is where I disagree with you lune.

1. I believe you should say, that Bernie could'nt win the NOMINATION. Which, I think is untrue. I still think there is huge chance that he can, and should he, he would win the election. The republican party will not. I remember how close of an election the last one felt vs how it actually was when it was all over. Mitt Romney lost by 132 electoral votes.. that's by like basically 75% of the vote... republicans don't stand a chance this year either. They are even more fractured than they were then, and their candidates are even less appealing. Whoever wins the democratic nomination, will become the next president.

2. This reminds me of the type of thing my dad says, where he thinks the president is more of a figure head than someone who can make any real changes. But that's just not true. Our president just veto's shit the religious extremest in congress try to pass left and right, national health care was his idea, the war in Iraq was a presidents personal choice. Bernie would achieve A LOT in his time in the office, that would make each of our lives drastically better. Maybe not so much for any player here that lives in a billionaire mansion, but that person still wont notice any real change. They'll still sit among their marble columns in front of their computer neckbearding as if nothing changed.

The only thing we have to do is get Bernie past Hillary.. its an uphill climb, but its one that seems more and more likely as we make it.