American Politics XI: No Moe Roe(Likely, Anyway)

[Necroghastia]

Sure. That's an entirely different argument, though.

It's not.

You need a semiautomatic firearm to have the capacity to defend yourself?

[American Legionaries]

It's not.

You need a semiautomatic firearm to have the capacity to defend yourself?

No, reasonably I need a lot more than just that, given things like tanks and jets and drones exist.

[Senkaku]

You need a semiautomatic firearm to have the capacity to defend yourself?

No, reasonably I need a lot more than just that, given things like tanks and jets and drones exist.

Who do you know who’s going to come after you with a jet aircraft, and how much free time do you have to coordinate your own personal air defense?

[Necroghastia]

You need a semiautomatic firearm to have the capacity to defend yourself?

No, reasonably I need a lot more than just that, given things like tanks and jets and drones exist.

You objected to the right to vote being labeled a right because governments are not "inherent to one's status as a person." Neither are tanks and jets.

[American Legionaries]

No, reasonably I need a lot more than just that, given things like tanks and jets and drones exist.

You objected to the right to vote being labeled a right because governments are not "inherent to one's status as a person." Neither are tanks and jets.

I never said they were.

[Tarsonis]

It's not.

You need a semiautomatic firearm to have the capacity to defend yourself?

The relationship between right and need in this case does not exist. Whether one needs one is really inconsequential to their right to possess it. Need, is an argument related to abridging said right based societal demand.

[Big Bad Blue]

Top US corporations raising prices on Americans even as profits surge

Inflation: 8.5%

Increase in average wages: 4%

Median corporate profit increase: 49%

Increase in median CEO compensation: 31%

So...whose fault is it again?

[Tarsonis]

Top US corporations raising prices on Americans even as profits surge

Inflation: 8.5%

Increase in average wages: 4%

Median corporate profit increase: 49%

Increase in median CEO compensation: 31%

So...whose fault is it again?

I'm all for trust busting. I'll even swing the axe if they'll let me.

[The Jamesian Republic]

Top US corporations raising prices on Americans even as profits surge

Inflation: 8.5%

Increase in average wages: 4%

Median corporate profit increase: 49%

Increase in median CEO compensation: 31%

So...whose fault is it again?

I'm all for trust busting. I'll even swing the axe if they'll let me.

Let me at them too.

[American Legionaries]

Top US corporations raising prices on Americans even as profits surge

Inflation: 8.5%

Increase in average wages: 4%

Median corporate profit increase: 49%

Increase in median CEO compensation: 31%

So...whose fault is it again?

I'm all for trust busting. I'll even swing the axe if they'll let me.

Bust the trust, and cap the incomes.

[The Rich Port]

I'm all for trust busting. I'll even swing the axe if they'll let me.

Let me at them too.

That's the problem with capitalism... They're not gonna let you because it's too profitable for the people in charge.

I wouldn't have a problem with profitability if it were properly distributed instead of hoarded by people who contribute barely anything to it.

[HISPIDA]

Top US corporations raising prices on Americans even as profits surge

Inflation: 8.5%

Increase in average wages: 4%

Median corporate profit increase: 49%

Increase in median CEO compensation: 31%

So...whose fault is it again?

*puts on fisherman's hat*

[Tarsonis]

I'm all for trust busting. I'll even swing the axe if they'll let me.

Bust the trust, and cap the incomes.

no. Capping income hinders growth and innovation.

[American Legionaries]

Bust the trust, and cap the incomes.

no. Capping income hinders growth and innovation.

Depends on how you cap them.

[Tarsonis]

no. Capping income hinders growth and innovation.

Depends on how you cap them.

not really. If you set a limit on what X entity can earn, said entity won't invest anything beyond what it takes to earn that much. so there's no incentive to innovate, no incentive to progress, because there's no return on investing.

[The United Penguin Commonwealth]

all I was pointing out is that the Republicans don't have any real policies at all.

Sure they do, we have 25 states that have passed constitutional carry, and a good handful that have enacted stricter abortion limits since Texas. And a good handful that have passed "don't say gay" bills since Florida's.

late reply, but I was specifically excluding things that just screw people over, which is the last two.

[Northern Socialist Council Republics]

I second Tarsonis’ opinion. Income caps were and still remain a bad idea.

[American Legionaries]

Depends on how you cap them.

not really. If you set a limit on what X entity can earn, said entity won't invest anything beyond what it takes to earn that much. so there's no incentive to innovate, no incentive to progress, because there's no return on investing.

Well the idea I'd floated before was a sliding cap, something to the effect of "Highest paid member of the organization cannot make more than X number of the lowest paid member"

Under such a system the executives of a company could expand to increase their own incomes, they would just need to increase the wages of lower employees by an equal percentage.

[American Legionaries]

Sure they do, we have 25 states that have passed constitutional carry, and a good handful that have enacted stricter abortion limits since Texas. And a good handful that have passed "don't say gay" bills since Florida's.

late reply, but I was specifically excluding things that just screw people over, which is the last two.

So your point isn't "Republicans have no policies" your point is "Republicans have no policies that I like"

[The United Penguin Commonwealth]

late reply, but I was specifically excluding things that just screw people over, which is the last two.

So your point isn't "Republicans have no policies" your point is "Republicans have no policies that I like"

the don’t say gay bills literally only exist to censor mentions of gay people. there is no other real effect. this has zero objective benefits and exists only to appease people think gay people are evil and they don’t want their little angels to learn about the gays.

[American Legionaries]

So your point isn't "Republicans have no policies" your point is "Republicans have no policies that I like"

the don’t say gay bills literally only exist to censor mentions of gay people. there is no other real effect. this has zero objective benefits and exists only to appease people think gay people are evil and they don’t want their little angels to learn about the gays.

The government is incapable of creating objective benefits.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Self declared Marxist: I'm actually okay with the workers surrendering the vast majority of their arms and ammunition, and forcing them to do so through threat of violence.

Marx's fucking ghost: Did I stutter?

there's a difference between a guy wanting to own an AR-15 or a gun collection or something like that and wanting to own a 500lb MK-82 freefall general purpose explosive

like if a dude wants to own an AR-15? sure, go for it. you want to put a scope on it? yeah, go wild. extended magazines? right on. ammunition? buy as much as you want, i don't care.

if a dude wants to own a military-grade weapon then they're gonna need a pretty good reason to buy one, and the only reasonable reason to want one is "i am in the military and supplying the military"

He has a point though, this is a very inconsistent point of view. What, fundamentally, is the problem with a worker wanting to acquire military grade weapons? The fear that they might use them for terrorism? That's the entire point of the quote in context.

To be able forcefully and threateningly to oppose this party, whose betrayal of the workers will begin with the very first hour of victory, the workers must be armed and organized. The whole proletariat must be armed at once with muskets, rifles, cannon and ammunition, and the revival of the old-style citizens’ militia, directed against the workers, must be opposed. Where the formation of this militia cannot be prevented, the workers must try to organize themselves independently as a proletarian guard, with elected leaders and with their own elected general staff; they must try to place themselves not under the orders of the state authority but of the revolutionary local councils set up by the workers. Where the workers are employed by the state, they must arm and organize themselves into special corps with elected leaders, or as a part of the proletarian guard. Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary. The destruction of the bourgeois democrats’ influence over the workers, and the enforcement of conditions which will compromise the rule of bourgeois democracy, which is for the moment inevitable, and make it as difficult as possible – these are the main points which the proletariat and therefore the League must keep in mind during and after the approaching uprising.

Even from a strictly Marxist point of view you've more in common with the bourgeois democrats than the workers in wanting to restrict the workers ability to acquire arms.

[The United Penguin Commonwealth]

the don’t say gay bills literally only exist to censor mentions of gay people. there is no other real effect. this has zero objective benefits and exists only to appease people think gay people are evil and they don’t want their little angels to learn about the gays.

The government is incapable of creating objective benefits.

I’m talking facts. Does the bill generally improve mental health? Does it generally improve physical health?

[Shrillland]

not really. If you set a limit on what X entity can earn, said entity won't invest anything beyond what it takes to earn that much. so there's no incentive to innovate, no incentive to progress, because there's no return on investing.

Well the idea I'd floated before was a sliding cap, something to the effect of "Highest paid member of the organization cannot make more than X number of the lowest paid member"

Under such a system the executives of a company could expand to increase their own incomes, they would just need to increase the wages of lower employees by an equal percentage.

Ultimately, any income cap is pointless because incomes aren't the problem, capital gains are.

[Northern Socialist Council Republics]

I ultimately take a very liberal view of gun control.

The fundamental basis of liberal legislation is that nothing shall be prohibited unless there is a compelling reason why it has to be. And I just don’t find the rationale behind prohibiting the civilian ownership of firearms to be at all compelling.