US Politics: Corporations are made out of people

[Galactus]

Sologdin,

To what political philosophy does Mr. Goodkind claim to subscribe?

Yeardism.

[Fez]

Sologdin,

To what political philosophy does Mr. Goodkind claim to subscribe?

Presumably he's a Libertarian. He is a hardcore objectivist after all.

On the other hand, his main character is an all-powerful ruler who is always right about everything and is fully justified in killing anyone who disagrees with him. So, maybe he's more a Platonic Utopianist, but only if he gets to be the Philosopher King.

ETA: AKA what Galactus said.

[sologdin]

can we rewrite the US constitution to be consistent with yeardism? it might be a useful experiment.

[Galactus]

can we rewrite the US constitution to be consistent with yeardism? it might be a useful experiment.

1. Goats are the noblest of animals.

2. Moral Celery is the centerpiece of government

3. Little girls should be kicked in the jaw.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

4. Chickens contain the deepest evil?

[Fez]

4A. Be particularly cognizant of chickens that are not chickens.

[Ramsay Gimp]

Discrimination is violence. Especially if you view taxation as violence. And it specifically is you privilege that allows you to avoid or downplay that connection.

Neglect and deprivation are violent acts. Albeit passive aggressive in their nature. And the deprivation of perscibed medicine to people is a violent act. As is deprivation of housing or food or medical care. It is a stark underlining of why the Bertian ideals do not work in reality.

The idea that all the discriminated group needs to is build whatever they need is again a very naive idea. Where do they get the loans? Not the discriminating banks that's for sure. Or the labor. Not from people who won't work with one of them types. So they develop their own skilled labor? OK who will train them? And so on down the line. All the while people starve or die of exposure so others can get more freedomz.

-So if you ask me for sex, or my wallet, and I neglect your "need" and deprive you of those things, I have committed violence? I have violated your rights? You are justified in forcing them out of me?

-They'll get the loans, labor, training, etc from you. They'll get them from me. They'll get them from the majority of people in this country, who, believe it or not, don't walk around with burning hatred in their heart. But there will also be a subset of people who choose to shun LGBTs for whatever reason, and their rights will have to be respected, though I suspect they will get more vitriol directed at them than LGBTs themselves (as is largely the case now).

I again respond to this silly "no one will do business with gays" argument below.

RG,

Let's use your scenario here where LGBT people form their own enclaves to ensure protection. Then an LGBT person has to travel across country to a different enclave for a job. LGBT person breaks down in a non-LGBT friendly territory...would it be okay to discriminate against providing them service and even food to the point they starved?

The problem I have with these extreme forms of libertarianism is the proposed "solutions" are all so juvenile because they're all so neat, with no examinations of the messy realities that happen in life.

Oh for pete's sake. What country are you typing this from? How hateful do you think the average American actually is? You really think that if private anti-discrimination laws were removed, such a small number of non-gays would consider hiring them or providing them services that it would lead to starvation? That they'd be forced to hop from "enclave to enclave", since no one outside of the Gay Zone will treat them as human?

I would hire LGBTs, and sell to them. So would you and pretty much everyone on this board. So would pretty much every major corporation, and most small businesses. Spin all the dystopian scenarios you want, but bigots with enough hate to actually act on their beliefs are a shrinking minority

Also, why should libertarianism or any political system have to account for every messy reality of life? Libertarianism appeals to me for the very reason that it doesn't try to do that. Progressivism, on the other hand, is a totalizing ideology that seeks to force all facets of society into its ideal image. That's a sign of naive utopian thinking, not maturity or "seriousness"

Presumably he's a Libertarian. He is a hardcore objectivist after all.

The most off-putting type of libertarian IMO. His violent, dictarorial protagonist makes sense given how bloodthirsty Objectivists are when it comes to foreigners

[Trebla]

This is such an incredible story, and the idea of Cuban intelligence agents and The Daily Caller working together (albeit, probably not aware of this) is hilarious.

For some odd reason, The Daily Caller website is strangely silent on this subject. :p

[aceluby]

Progressivism, on the other hand, is a totalizing ideology that seeks to force all facets of society into its ideal image.

Wrong.

Progressivism is a broad political philosophy based on the Idea of Progress, which asserts that advances in science, technology, economic development, and social organization can improve the human condition.

This means EVERYBODY has a chance to compete economically and socially on an equal footing, something that can't happen when people are allowed to discriminate to prevent others from participating in the economy or society. Even if this happens at the most local of levels it is still taking freedom from others. No matter what, someone is losing freedom, so saying one is 'better' than the other is pure hypocrisy.

[awesome possum]

Kansas was supposed to be the GOP's tax-cut paradise. Now it can barely pay its bills

in January 2012, Brownback announced that a major tax cut would be the centerpiece of his agenda.

Brownback's tax cut proposal came as Kansas's revenues were on an upswing. Spending cuts and a one-cent sales tax passed by Brownback's Democratic predecessor had combined with economic growth to give Kansas a surplus. Now, Brownback argued, his tax cuts would lead to even more success. "I firmly believe these reforms will set the stage for strong economic growth in Kansas," he said.

The governor proposed to cut income taxes on the state's highest earners from 6.45 percent to 4.9 percent, to simplify tax brackets, and to eliminate state income taxes on most small business income entirely. In a nod to fiscal responsibility, though, he proposed to end several tax deductions and exemptions, including the well-liked home mortgage interest deduction. This would help pay for the cuts.

Yet as the bill went through the state Senate, these deductions proved too popular, and legislators voted to keep them all. The bill's estimated price tag rose from about $105 million to $800 million, but Brownback kept supporting it anyway. "I'm gonna sign this bill, I'm excited about the prospects for it, and I'm very thankful for how God has blessed our state," he said.

So at least one state gave into the GOP's deepest wish and cut taxes on the rich and small businesses. How did that work out?

"State general fund revenue is down over $700 million from last year," Duane Goossen, a former state budget director, told me. "That's a bigger drop than the state had in the whole three years of the recession," he said — and it's a huge chunk of the state's $6 billion budget. Goossen added that the Kansas's surplus, which had been replenished since the recession, "is now being spent at an alarming, amazing rate."

The declining revenues have necessitated extensive cuts in state education funding, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Moody's cut of the state's bond rating this May was another embarrassment. And the economic benefits Brownback promised haven't materialized either. Chris Ingraham wrote at Wonkblog that Kansas's job growth has lagged behind the rest of the country, "especially in the years following the first round of Brownback tax cuts."

But don't worry, there's a legitimate excuse for this that has nothing to do with tax cuts for the rich.

Brownback, like New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, has blamed President Obama for his state's growing red ink. "This is an undeniable result of President Obama's failed economic policies of increasing taxes and overregulation," Brownback's revenue secretary Nick Jordan said.

Ahh, yes, the tried and true GOP excuse: BECAUSE OBAMA!!

[The Marquis de Leech]

4. Chickens contain the deepest evil?

I now have this image of the US Supreme Court ruling on what constitutes a chicken. And chickens that are not chickens.

[aceluby]

Kansas was supposed to be the GOP's tax-cut paradise. Now it can barely pay its bills

So at least one state gave into the GOP's deepest wish and cut taxes on the rich and small businesses. How did that work out?

But don't worry, there's a legitimate excuse for this that has nothing to do with tax cuts for the rich.

Ahh, yes, the tried and true GOP excuse: BECAUSE OBAMA!!

And you know what he's going to do? He's going to cut education and leave it to locals so his state budget doesn't look so bad. They will in turn raise property taxes, and if it is anything like what happened in my state, those property taxes will skyrocket in order to pay for these cuts.

Robbing peter to pay paul.

But hey, he did create an awesome new position in the Office of Repealer (not even kidding...)

[Shryke]

Presumably he's a Libertarian. He is a hardcore objectivist after all.

On the other hand, his main character is an all-powerful ruler who is always right about everything and is fully justified in killing anyone who disagrees with him. So, maybe he's more a Platonic Utopianist, but only if he gets to be the Philosopher King.

Nah, that sounds like the basis of libertarian belief. Everyone believes in the land of no restrictions, they will be the ubermensch. It's like how all the obsessed people think that if the shit hit the fan, they'd totally be the post-apocalyptic badass.

[Shryke]

Kansas was supposed to be the GOP's tax-cut paradise. Now it can barely pay its bills

So at least one state gave into the GOP's deepest wish and cut taxes on the rich and small businesses. How did that work out?

But don't worry, there's a legitimate excuse for this that has nothing to do with tax cuts for the rich.

Ahh, yes, the tried and true GOP excuse: BECAUSE OBAMA!!

Hey now, Kansas has been so successful, Missouri is doing the same thing!

Sure, the Democratic Governor pointed out that Brownback's tax cuts had fucked Kansas, but the GOP legislature believed in tax cuts against all evidence and so overrode his veto to give Missouri that lack of a budget they feel it so richly deserves.

[Athias]

You come back with that shitty analogy after accusing others of having nothing of content with which to rebut your arguments when they say you are like you are from another planet?

Who claimed that I was from another planet? And I did not accuse "others" of having nothing of content -- that accusation was aimed at BloodRider, alone. I have no problem with creating analogies to communicate a premise, but making irrelevant references to "libertarian islands" and "white boy middle-class perspectives" is what I find lacking of substance. Hence my current refusal to respond.

denying someone association (as you seem to define employment and service) and use of your property (allowing them to rent your property) on the basis of arbitrary personal charcteristics is denying someone what they need to live. There is no jungle that they can just walk outside and learn to be a hunter gatherer in, while still participating in this society.

There's a difference between denying someone something and "depriving" them of it. I know it's semantics, but the distinction is necessary for communication. The utility one may find in another person's property does not overrule one's authority over one's property. Consider it from a laborer's perspective -- if one refuses to work for someone by reason of some bigoted prejudice, one can easily make the argument that parallels your argument that denying someone association (employment) and one's property (labor) is denying someone what they need to live. Would you then suggest that all workers must submit their labor, regardless of any held prejudice, because their employer's need of their labor supersedes their own interests? Is that not slavery?

Employment discrimination is not allowed both to protect minorities and because the arbitrary characteristic is irrelevant to the purpose - what is relevant is how well they will do their job, so we say you can't do that. WIth service/selling products what is relevant is that they have the money to buy your product. With renting a property what is relevant is that they will look after the property and pay their rent on time. For the purposes of sex, an activity that is frequently undertaken for the pure pursuit of pleasure, what you want is relevant and who you want to have sex with is relevant. Shitty analogy is shitty.

So in one's effort to "protect" minorities and judging an arbitrary characteristic to be irrelevant, is one not, in fact, making a discrimination--the very thing you're railing against? The purpose of employment is to be determined by the involved parties in the labor contract. The reasons for accepting employment is individual to each party, whether that is having a nice rack or penis, being male or female, or bona fide occupational credentials. One's property -- one's terms.

On another note, I did not proffer a "shitty analogy." It's meant to draw a parallel as it concerns propriety not utility. It wouldn't matter whether I was seeking sex for pleasure. The reason I choose to have sex is solely within my discretion. It involves my body, shouldn't I have authority over its use? I ask you: if the utility of another person's property supersedes the interests of the proprietor, then what is wrong with the State forcing me into a quota, where I must meet the needs of those who wish to have at go at me?

*And for the record, karaddin, Ram-Geezy is correct. When one evokes an irrelevant characterization of an argument's author, that is argumentum ad hominem. It does not have to be an insult. Your inference is not reasonable; it's prejudiced. You know nothing of my background. And even if you did, it would still be irrelevant. Let's not indulge these debates over character.

^That statement, among others, makes your position extreme compared to other self-described libertarians, like Ser Scott who you were responding to, who support at least a very small state. If you're unsatisfied with the term I chose for your preference for no state whatsoever, I apologize, but I'm not interested in pursuing a debate on terminology in a casual forum discussion where my meaning is very clear.

Questioning one's position isn't in and of itself a position. And I'm not a "self-described" libertarian. I've actually denied that I'm a libertarian. I am, however, familiar with libertarian principles. While true that your meaning is very clear in this casual discussion, your defense of it has been propositioned. You have not answered my second question: why are you presuming a relativism to Libertarianism? If the principle objectives are autonomy, freedom of choice and association, and the sovereignty of individual judgement (as it concerns said individual) how can one be "extreme" in that regard?

Ser Scot argued a position, which I can only assume to be libertarian minarchism. There are libertarian minarchist views like that of Ramsay's, where a strong state is proposed as the most efficient dispenser of public goods. This position neither assumes an objective necessity nor does is it reject anarchism. It maintains that a reduced State can serve a good -- a notion that I don't find invalid. Then, there are minarchist views that maintain a view that without some State coercive authority, society will "devolve" into a state that conflates anarchy with chaos and that we'd all be subject to nuclear onslaught.

I have my reasons for favoring anarchism. The position that I hold, as it regards the existence of a State, is that inclusion should be voluntary. How is that extreme?

@Galactus: I read your response. I'm choosing not to respond because I don't want to be redundant.

[BloodRider]

-They'll get the loans, labor, training, etc from you. They'll get them from me. They'll get them from the majority of people in this country, who, believe it or not, don't walk around with burning hatred in their heart. But there will also be a subset of people who choose to shun LGBTs for whatever reason, and their rights will have to be respected, though I suspect they will get more vitriol directed at them than LGBTs themselves (as is largely the case now).

I again respond to this silly "no one will do business with gays" argument below.

That is a complete and utter straw man. I am not saying "no one will do business with gays" despite your use of quotations. First off, I think the situation applies to any out-group - not just gays. And while you may be happy waiting while Athiests / Muslims / East Asians / Trans / low skilled workers / working poor / mentally ill / whatever group is next to get their chance to present their case and get the US behind them, you have no right to allow other to impose their violent systems on them just because in increases your freedom beanz.

Second, it does not take all of society, or even a majority of bigots to fuck the system up for an out group. Think about Apartheid. Hell think about the situation for unions in the US. How about women in the US? How about for black people in the US. You think the high rate of incarceration is an accident? No, what it does take is a small enough number of politically motivated people with enough money or power to rig the system or spread simply FUD. I mean really! We have specific examples of groups enshrining their prejudices into law and yet you have the balls to claim that it wont happen. This is why I claim you are out of touch.

You say they will get their jobs etc from rational people, but let me posit a situation where Wal-Mart says they will not do business with people who do business with an out group. Suppliers will side with Wal-Mart in most cases. And don't tell me it won't happen here in the US, because it fucking just did happen.

[K-26dp]

I now have this image of the US Supreme Court ruling on what constitutes a chicken. And chickens that are not chickens.

They will rule that you can be or not be a chicken as long as it's a "deeply held belief".

[Queen Ayras Lord Commander]

They will rule that you can be or not be a chicken as long as it's a "deeply held belief".

Tough case to forecast. I've heard this will be the litigator for one of the sides:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQpaoLpKrMg

[Summah]

-They'll get the loans, labor, training, etc from you. They'll get them from me. They'll get them from the majority of people in this country, who, believe it or not, don't walk around with burning hatred in their heart. But there will also be a subset of people who choose to shun LGBTs for whatever reason, and their rights will have to be respected, though I suspect they will get more vitriol directed at them than LGBTs themselves (as is largely the case now).

Oh for pete's sake. What country are you typing this from? How hateful do you think the average American actually is? You really think that if private anti-discrimination laws were removed, such a small number of non-gays would consider hiring them or providing them services that it would lead to starvation? That they'd be forced to hop from "enclave to enclave", since no one outside of the Gay Zone will treat them as human?

During Jim Crow, which wasn't really that long ago, my father was a kid and remembers some of it and my grandfather remembers those days very clearly, there "sundown towns", not just in the south but all over the country, if you were black and were caught in one of those towns after dark you risked getting lynched, keep in mind this was only 50 years ago. I assume you know about the affect segregation had on food and lodging, but it went further, some gas stations wouldn't sell gas to black people. There was a travel guide called the Green Book that told black people where they could go safely so they could travel with less fear of being locked, beaten or lynched. So yes there is a risk of not being treated as human by Americans.

[Suttree]

Oh for pete's sake. What country are you typing this from? How hateful do you think the average American actually is? You really think that if private anti-discrimination laws were removed, such a small number of non-gays would consider hiring them or providing them services that it would lead to starvation? That they'd be forced to hop from "enclave to enclave", since no one outside of the Gay Zone will treat them as human?

I would hire LGBTs, and sell to them. So would you and pretty much everyone on this board. So would pretty much every major corporation, and most small businesses. Spin all the dystopian scenarios you want, but bigots with enough hate to actually act on their beliefs are a shrinking minority

You seem to just be sticking your head in the sand around the fact that it was anti-discrimination laws which are largely responsible for the advances we have made as a society as it relates to the above.