NATION

PASSWORD

Obama Presidential Center

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)

Should the presidential center be built in the public park?

Yes
22
31%
No
48
69%
 
Total votes : 70

User avatar
Xerographica
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5877
Founded: Aug 15, 2012
Capitalist Paradise

Obama Presidential Center

Postby Xerographica » Wed Jan 17, 2018 8:01 pm

But have you ever asked yourselves sufficiently how much the erection of every ideal on earth has cost? How much reality has had to be misunderstood and slandered, how many lies have had to be sanctified, how many consciences disturbed, how much "God" sacrificed every time? If a temple is to be erected a temple must be destroyed: that is the law – let anyone who can show me a case in which it is not fulfilled! – Friedrich Nietzsche, On the Genealogy of Morality


Right now Chicago is planning to destroy 20 acres of public park in order to erect the Obama Presidential Center. Does Chicago really need more buildings and less trees? Personally, I don't think that it does.

Here's the basic economic concern...

It is impossible for anyone, even if he be a statesman of genius, to weigh the whole community’s utility and sacrifice against each other. — Knut Wicksell, A New Principle of Just Taxation

I've attached a survey to this thread...

Should the presidential center be built in the public park?

Yes
No

We will be able to see which option is more popular. But what if we wanted to see which option is more useful? The city of Chicago could conduct the same survey but, instead of participants simply voting for their preferred option, they would spend any amount of money on it. This system would kill two birds with one stone...

1. Everybody would see and know the actual demand for/against the proposal.
2. The city would raise money to help reduce its ridiculously huge debt.

How much money would you be willing to spend on your preferred option?

From my perspective, the world needs a lot more trees and a lot less buildings. So I'd definitely spend my money on the "No" option. It's hard to say though exactly how much money that I'd be willing to spend. Definitely a dollar. Probably $5 dollars. Maybe $10 dollars. Not sure about $20 dollars.

User avatar
Purpelia
Post Czar
 
Posts: 30099
Founded: Oct 19, 2010
Libertarian Police State

Postby Purpelia » Wed Jan 17, 2018 8:04 pm

From my perspective I'd say that they are being stupid. But it's also none of my concern.
As for the pay to play survey you suggest that's even stupider. It's literally setting up a paywall to voting AND making everyone vote count only as much as he can spend at once!
Purpelia does not reflect my actual world views. In fact, the vast majority of Purpelian cannon is meant to shock and thus deliberately insane. I just like playing with the idea of a country of madmen utterly convinced that everyone else are the barbarians. So play along or not but don't ever think it's for real.



The above post contains hyperbole, metaphoric language, embellishment and exaggeration. It may also include badly translated figures of speech and misused idioms. Analyze accordingly.

User avatar
Insaeldor
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5289
Founded: Aug 26, 2014
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Insaeldor » Wed Jan 17, 2018 8:07 pm

Not really concerned.
Time is a prismatic uniform polyhedron

User avatar
Community Values
Minister
 
Posts: 2880
Founded: Nov 14, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Community Values » Wed Jan 17, 2018 8:12 pm

Why would a money survey make people choose the most useful option?
"Corrupted by wealth and power, your government is like a restaurant with only one dish. They've got a set of Republican waiters on one side and a set of Democratic waiters on the other side. But no matter which set of waiters brings you the dish, the legislative grub is all prepared in the same Wall Street kitchen."
-Huey Long

User avatar
Xerographica
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5877
Founded: Aug 15, 2012
Capitalist Paradise

Postby Xerographica » Wed Jan 17, 2018 8:17 pm

Purpelia wrote:From my perspective I'd say that they are being stupid. But it's also none of my concern.

Where do you draw the "my concern" line? Is it any of your concern that the Amazon rain forest is being destroyed?

Purpelia wrote:As for the pay to play survey you suggest that's even stupider. It's literally setting up a paywall to voting AND making everyone vote count only as much as he can spend at once!

People are unequally concerned... so why should they have an equal say?

User avatar
Xerographica
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5877
Founded: Aug 15, 2012
Capitalist Paradise

Postby Xerographica » Wed Jan 17, 2018 8:20 pm

Community Values wrote:Why would a money survey make people choose the most useful option?

The more money that you're willing to spend on something, the more useful it is to you.

User avatar
Neanderthaland
Minister
 
Posts: 2332
Founded: Sep 10, 2016
Ex-Nation

Postby Neanderthaland » Wed Jan 17, 2018 8:23 pm

Xerographica wrote:
Community Values wrote:Why would a money survey make people choose the most useful option?

The more money that you're willing to spend on something, the more useful it is to you.

Oh hey, another thread on Xero's religious beliefs disguised as something else.

I'm shocked. Shocked!
Ug make fire. Mod ban Ug.

User avatar
Bruke
Minister
 
Posts: 2995
Founded: Nov 21, 2017
Authoritarian Democracy

Postby Bruke » Wed Jan 17, 2018 8:23 pm

I say build the presidential center in another area, not a public park. I'm sure there'll be open land somewhere on the edge of the Chicago suburbs.

User avatar
VoVoDoCo
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1248
Founded: Sep 07, 2017
Ex-Nation

Postby VoVoDoCo » Wed Jan 17, 2018 8:24 pm

Xerographica wrote:
Purpelia wrote:From my perspective I'd say that they are being stupid. But it's also none of my concern.

Where do you draw the "my concern" line? Is it any of your concern that the Amazon rain forest is being destroyed?

Purpelia wrote:As for the pay to play survey you suggest that's even stupider. It's literally setting up a paywall to voting AND making everyone vote count only as much as he can spend at once!

People are unequally concerned... so why should they have an equal say?

1. (S)he probably draws the concern line at "not my city, not my business" which is a sentiment that I almost share. That's not even close to being anti rain forest. That's just a different city with different spending priorities. Meh. But I do hate the fact that ANY government (federal, state, local) builds and maintains ANY monuments at all (confederate one, Lincoln memorial, etc) I just don't get it:
Republicans could use the money spent on these monuments to buy military equipment or JUSTIFY lowering taxes.
Democrats could use that money spent on these monuments to thicken the safety net.

I'm against all three of those, but they're better options than mother fucking rocks.

2. Are you saying there's no such thing as passionate poor people and apathetic rich people? Because... that's psychotic.
Last edited by VoVoDoCo on Wed Jan 17, 2018 8:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Zanera
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9700
Founded: Jun 28, 2012
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Zanera » Wed Jan 17, 2018 8:24 pm

Well the OP went from "Proposal to build building on a place of nature and rec/relaxation" to...Xero's obsession with putting-money-towards-things-for-reasons on a dime.

It kinda sucks that they might build on a natural landscape.
I'll just ignore the second half of the OP.

User avatar
VoVoDoCo
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1248
Founded: Sep 07, 2017
Ex-Nation

Postby VoVoDoCo » Wed Jan 17, 2018 8:28 pm

Zanera wrote:Well the OP went from "Proposal to build building on a place of nature and rec/relaxation" to...Xero's obsession with putting-money-towards-things-for-reasons on a dime.

It kinda sucks that they might build on a natural landscape.
I'll just ignore the second half of the OP.

Wise.

User avatar
Bruke
Minister
 
Posts: 2995
Founded: Nov 21, 2017
Authoritarian Democracy

Postby Bruke » Wed Jan 17, 2018 8:30 pm

Vovodoco wrote:
Xerographica wrote:Where do you draw the "my concern" line? Is it any of your concern that the Amazon rain forest is being destroyed?


People are unequally concerned... so why should they have an equal say?

1. (S)he probably draws the concern line at "not my city, not my business" which is a sentiment that I almost share. That's not even close to being anti rain forest. That's just a different city with different spending priorities. Meh. But I do hate the fact that ANY government (federal, state, local) builds and maintains ANY monuments at all (confederate one, Lincoln memorial, etc) I just don't get it:
Republicans could use the money spent on these monuments to buy military equipment or JUSTIFY lowering taxes.
Democrats could use that money spent on these monuments to thicken the safety net.

I'm against all three of those, but they're better options than mother fucking rocks.

2. Are you saying there's no such thing as passionate poor people and apathetic rich people? Because... that's psychotic.


i'd have to disagree. Monuments can be great sources of local, state, or national pride. Or be used to commemorate an important historical event or person.

User avatar
Xerographica
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5877
Founded: Aug 15, 2012
Capitalist Paradise

Postby Xerographica » Wed Jan 17, 2018 8:30 pm

Vovodoco wrote:
Xerographica wrote:Where do you draw the "my concern" line? Is it any of your concern that the Amazon rain forest is being destroyed?


People are unequally concerned... so why should they have an equal say?

1. (S)he probably draws the concern line at "not my city, not my business" which is a sentiment that I almost share.

If "foreigners" are wiling to spend their money on one of the options, then this proves that it's their business.

Vovodoco wrote:2. Are you saying there's no such thing as passionate poor people and apathetic rich people? Because... that's psychotic.

Markets are psychotic? I disagree.

User avatar
Sovaal
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12858
Founded: Mar 17, 2017
New York Times Democracy

Postby Sovaal » Wed Jan 17, 2018 8:31 pm

Really, don’t care about Chicago and what it wants to do.

Dirty centrist
Unapologetic Jon Snow supporter
"Rifles, muskets, long-bows and hand-grenades are inherently democratic weapons. A complex weapon makes the strong stronger, while a simple weapon – so long as there is no answer to it – gives claws to the weak.” - George Orwell

User avatar
Purpelia
Post Czar
 
Posts: 30099
Founded: Oct 19, 2010
Libertarian Police State

Postby Purpelia » Wed Jan 17, 2018 8:32 pm

Xerographica wrote:Markets are psychotic? I disagree.

Than you literally know nothing about economics.
Purpelia does not reflect my actual world views. In fact, the vast majority of Purpelian cannon is meant to shock and thus deliberately insane. I just like playing with the idea of a country of madmen utterly convinced that everyone else are the barbarians. So play along or not but don't ever think it's for real.



The above post contains hyperbole, metaphoric language, embellishment and exaggeration. It may also include badly translated figures of speech and misused idioms. Analyze accordingly.

User avatar
VoVoDoCo
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1248
Founded: Sep 07, 2017
Ex-Nation

Postby VoVoDoCo » Wed Jan 17, 2018 8:37 pm

Xerographica wrote:
Vovodoco wrote:(S)he probably draws the concern line at "not my city, not my business" which is a sentiment that I almost share.

If 1."foreigners" 2.are wiling to spend their money on one of the options, 3.then this proves that it's their business.

Vovodoco wrote:Are you saying there's no such thing as passionate poor people and apathetic rich people? Because... that's psychotic.

4.Markets are psychotic? I disagree.

Whoa whoa whoa whoa
1. Why the quotes around foreigners?
2. But people AREN'T willing to spend money on voting for an option. Thus, the huge amount of dissent you've face on NS the numerous times you've tried to apply your micro payments plan thingy. Have you seen that app Zip? SUPER popular, free voting, more accurate representation of how the populace feels.
3. No it doesn't. Simply a few individuals donating to a political cause in a different state or even another country doesn't prove it's actually their business. And it sure as hell doesn't prove that "foreigners" should care.
4. I'm pro market. You're applying market logic to areas of life that the markets don't apply.
Last edited by VoVoDoCo on Wed Jan 17, 2018 8:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
VoVoDoCo
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1248
Founded: Sep 07, 2017
Ex-Nation

Postby VoVoDoCo » Wed Jan 17, 2018 8:46 pm

Bruke wrote:
Vovodoco wrote:1. (S)he probably draws the concern line at "not my city, not my business" which is a sentiment that I almost share. That's not even close to being anti rain forest. That's just a different city with different spending priorities. Meh. But I do hate the fact that ANY government (federal, state, local) builds and maintains ANY monuments at all (confederate one, Lincoln memorial, etc) I just don't get it:
Republicans could use the money spent on these monuments to buy military equipment or JUSTIFY lowering taxes.
Democrats could use that money spent on these monuments to thicken the safety net.

I'm against all three of those, but they're better options than mother fucking rocks.

2. Are you saying there's no such thing as passionate poor people and apathetic rich people? Because... that's psychotic.


i'd have to disagree. Monuments can be great sources of local, state, or national pride. Or be used to commemorate an important historical event or person.

If I can stereotype your politics from the stats of your nation (which is often foolish), I'd say you're a Republican.

Yes, monuments can be a source of pride. So can a strong military. So can responsible government spending. Why should the government take everybody's tax payer dollars and use them to build giant rocks in favor of, or in support of, a person/event/etc that they don't want their money being used to commemorate? What if they'd rather that money be used to defend them via more police/military? Or a tax break, to help feed their families? Why rocks?

User avatar
Bombadil
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 7908
Founded: Oct 13, 2011
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Bombadil » Wed Jan 17, 2018 8:47 pm

Well I think Obama is an important symbolic point in American history and..

...

:eyebrow:

..wait a minute..
Eldest, that's what I am...Tom remembers the first raindrop and the first acorn...he knew the dark under the stars when it was fearless — before the Dark Lord came from Outside..

User avatar
VoVoDoCo
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1248
Founded: Sep 07, 2017
Ex-Nation

Postby VoVoDoCo » Wed Jan 17, 2018 8:48 pm

Bombadil wrote:Well I think Obama is an important symbolic point in American history and..

...

:eyebrow:

..wait a minute..

Lemme guess, just finished the last half of the OP?

Just caught on to the bait and switch?

Just got seriously disappointed?

User avatar
Bruke
Minister
 
Posts: 2995
Founded: Nov 21, 2017
Authoritarian Democracy

Postby Bruke » Wed Jan 17, 2018 8:50 pm

Vovodoco wrote:
Bruke wrote:
i'd have to disagree. Monuments can be great sources of local, state, or national pride. Or be used to commemorate an important historical event or person.

If I can stereotype your politics from the stats of your nation (which is often foolish), I'd say you're a Republican.

Yes, monuments can be a source of pride. So can a strong military. So can responsible government spending. Why should the government take everybody's tax payer dollars and use them to build giant rocks in favor of, or in support of, a person/event/etc that they don't want their money being used to commemorate? What if they'd rather that money be used to defend them via more police/military? Or a tax break, to help feed their families? Why rocks?


Ideally, the government would focus on commemorating people/events/things that are recognized by the vast majority of Americans as positive. Perhaps something for the Constitution, or the Declaration of Independence. Or putting a man on the moon. Or Mr. Rogers. I don;t think there could be anyone who would object to Mr. Rogers :p But you get my point.

PS: A national monument could also NOT be giant rocks 8) The designation can, should, and has been used to preserve and protect places that are already historical.
Last edited by Bruke on Wed Jan 17, 2018 8:53 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
The Black Forrest
Post Czar
 
Posts: 32985
Founded: Antiquity
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby The Black Forrest » Wed Jan 17, 2018 8:51 pm

*shrugs* What's your views on the National Park reductions?
*I am a master proofreader after I click Submit.
* There is actually a War on Christmas. But Christmas started it, with it's unparalleled aggression against the Thanksgiving Holiday, and now Christmas has seized much Lebensraum in November, and are pushing into October. The rest of us seek to repel these invaders, and push them back to the status quo ante bellum Black Friday border. -Trotskylvania
* Silence Is Golden But Duct Tape Is Silver.
* I felt like Ayn Rand cornered me at a party, and three minutes in I found my first objection to what she was saying, but she kept talking without interruption for ten more days. - Max Barry talking about Atlas Shrugged

User avatar
Major-Tom
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 7847
Founded: Mar 09, 2016
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Major-Tom » Wed Jan 17, 2018 8:53 pm

It doesn't have to be built at Jackson Park. Yeah - I get the symbolism of building it in the South Side, but that park has a degree of importance overall. Maybe somewhere else in Chicago? Lots of vacant land just due north of Midway Airport.

That said, if the park is the only option, then so be it, I suppose.
Last edited by Major-Tom on Wed Jan 17, 2018 8:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
White Trash Hipster- Flagstaffer - Swimmer - Hiker - Powered by Caffeine and Nicotine
Factbooks
Pro: Social Democracy, Unions, Gun Control, Civic Nationalism, Environmentalism, Anti-Establishment Politics, Higher Minimum Wage, Anti-Interventionism, Marijuana Legalization, Progressivism.

User avatar
Bruke
Minister
 
Posts: 2995
Founded: Nov 21, 2017
Authoritarian Democracy

Postby Bruke » Wed Jan 17, 2018 8:54 pm

Major-Tom wrote:It doesn't have to be built at Jackson Park. Yeah - I get the symbolism of building it in the South Side, but that park has a degree of importance overall. Maybe somewhere else in Chicago? Lots of vacant land just due north of Midway Airport.

That said, if the park is the only option, then so be it, I suppose.


:clap: You sir, are the real MVP.

User avatar
VoVoDoCo
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1248
Founded: Sep 07, 2017
Ex-Nation

Postby VoVoDoCo » Wed Jan 17, 2018 8:55 pm

Bruke wrote:
Vovodoco wrote:If I can stereotype your politics from the stats of your nation (which is often foolish), I'd say you're a Republican.

Yes, monuments can be a source of pride. So can a strong military. So can responsible government spending. Why should the government take everybody's tax payer dollars and use them to build giant rocks in favor of, or in support of, a person/event/etc that they don't want their money being used to commemorate? What if they'd rather that money be used to defend them via more police/military? Or a tax break, to help feed their families? Why rocks?


Ideally, the government would focus on commemorating people/events/things that are recognized by the vast majority of Americans as positive. Perhaps something for the Constitution, or the Declaration of Independence. Or putting a man on the moon. Or Mr. Rogers.

How big a majority? And why can't we just put it on the tax forms, "If you support the Obama monument, please check here to donate [absurdly small %or$] to its maintenance." And if not enough people support it, than shabam. It's obviously not worth forcing everyone to spend money on.
(Take note Xerographica, that was a reasonable application of micro-payments.)

Also there are some popular figures in American history who have had some vices in their lives. People who feel that it would be unethical to support them, shouldn't have too, regardless of how popular the monument is to everyone.
Last edited by VoVoDoCo on Wed Jan 17, 2018 8:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Bruke
Minister
 
Posts: 2995
Founded: Nov 21, 2017
Authoritarian Democracy

Postby Bruke » Wed Jan 17, 2018 8:59 pm

Vovodoco wrote:
Bruke wrote:
Ideally, the government would focus on commemorating people/events/things that are recognized by the vast majority of Americans as positive. Perhaps something for the Constitution, or the Declaration of Independence. Or putting a man on the moon. Or Mr. Rogers.

How big a majority? And why can't we just put it on the tax forms, "If you support the Obama monument, please check here to donate [absurdly small %or$] to its maintenance." And if not enough people support it, than shabam. It's obviously not worth forcing everyone to spend money on.
(Take note Xerographica, that was a reasonable application of micro-payments.)

Also there are some popular figures in American history who have had some vices in their lives. People who feel that it would be unethical to support them, shouldn't have, regardless of how popular the monument is to everyone.


I do like your proposal about the tax forms, but practically speaking: applying that to every national monument would take up a lot of space... Perhaps the government could have a special website instead, to inform people about the monuments, and why they are important. Have local, state, or national historical societies take care of the monuments, but have the feds, states, and localities encourage people to donate money.

Next

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Chernoslavia, Christian Bail, DesAnges, Dooom35796821595, Dumb Ideologies, Fahran, Genivaria, Google [Bot], Grand Britannia, Greater Loralia, Idzequitch, Kartofian, Kubra, Lillorainen, Luziyca, Mardla, Oil exporting People, Philjia, Roving Clans, Straite, The blAAtschApen, The Grims, The Land of the Ephyral, The Niceties of Normal Moral Constraints, The Xenopolis Confederation, Torrocca, Victorious Decepticons

Remove ads