American Politics: Fiscal Cliffhanger

[Tarsonis]

That's not an answer. The ERA has a storied debate. Try educating yourself on it.

I’ll have you know I’ve watched an entire Hulu miniseries about it; do you think Cate Blanchett and Rose Byrne don’t deserve rights ?

they have rights. if you knew, you'd already know that's been part of the debate.

[Khurkhogur]

Yeah no. Liberalism/capitalism and personal liberty are deeply intertwined. The first corporations were joint-stock companies, where every person involved in the venture invested their effort and money, splitting the profits later. That's the essence of capitalism. Without the right to pursue your own business as you see fit in an economic sense, personal liberty is totally meaningless. Deciding how people should be allowed to dispose of their personal liberty completely negates the point of personal liberty.
And the reverse is also true - why should society (under socialism) have to support you if your lifestyle is totally out of whack or if you're not contributing to society? The logic of socialism totally breaks down if one part of society works to uphold the system while another part are allowed to live however they see fit.

Why should we care about philosophical consistency? If you put down the textbooks and look at how these things operate in the real world, it's pretty clear that "pursuing your own business" translates to making poor people's lives miserable and trashing the ecosystem, distinct effects that are entirely separable from things like abortion and LGBT rights. And the whole point of socialism is a rejection of individualist standards. It supports "out of whack lifestyles" because it supports everyone regardless of lifestyle.

I am talking about the real world.
When a socialist society is required to support everything and everyone, it collapses. Say 5% of people in a socialist society decide to neither work nor obey social standards/the law. Not only would the remaining populace have to take on the responsibilities for that 5%, but their quality of life would be reduced (people who disobey standards cause social chaos). That would be catastrophic for the system, because those most committed to upholding it would be the ones punished for the lax behavior of others.
It's capitalism that allows people to fall through the cracks without it really causing a burden on the system. Now you should see what I mean about capitalism and liberty going together. The system can tolerate people slacking off/causing social chaos because it's not really responsible for their wellbeing. For example, those who don't work in a capitalist society become homeless, at which point they're nobody's responsibility.

[Narland]

apparently desantis is trying to revive florida’s military force, which would be under his control. I’m sure there are only good reasons for that.

wait what Florida 's military force isn't that just the national guard?

Military Times - Guard / Reserve Handbook - State Militias
STATE MILITIAS

Federal law allows states to form militias. These are reserve organizations under the authority of state governments and regulated by the National Guard Bureau.

There are two basic kinds of militias — State Defense Forces (also known as State Guards, State Military Reserves or State Militias) and Naval Militias. These forces are distinct from their state’s National Guard in that they cannot be mobilized for federal service and they are not funded by the federal government.

Twenty-two states and Puerto Rico have some form of State Defense Force or Naval Militia, or both, each with different levels of activity, state support and strength, and oriented mainly toward emergency management and homeland security missions.

Training standards vary widely from state to state. Members of State Defense Forces and Naval Militia units are volunteers and must buy their own uniforms and most, if not all, of their own equipment. They generally are not authorized to carry military weaponry.

Note: This was the cache and didn't get posted before logout last time. I hope it is still helpful.

[Peacetime]

I’ll have you know I’ve watched an entire Hulu miniseries about it; do you think Cate Blanchett and Rose Byrne don’t deserve rights ?

they have rights. if you knew, you'd already know that's been part of the debate.

The amendment could help prevent them from backsliding.

[Senkaku]

When a socialist society is required to support everything and everyone, it collapses.

What “socialist society” are we talking about here? Are you just subtweeting the old Red Army budget or something?

Say 5% of people in a socialist society decide to neither work nor obey social standards/the law. Not only would the remaining populace have to take on the responsibilities for that 5%, but their quality of life would be reduced (people who disobey standards cause social chaos). That would be catastrophic for the system, because those most committed to upholding it would be the ones punished for the lax behavior of others.

Say I had twenty watermelons, and I gave you nine. That would be catastrophic for me, because I would then have fewer watermelons.

I’ll have you know I’ve watched an entire Hulu miniseries about it; do you think Cate Blanchett and Rose Byrne don’t deserve rights ?

they have rights. if you knew, you'd already know that's been part of the debate.

Rose Byrne does NOT have rights; if she did, she would be paid the same as Sandra Bullock (she has the range!). [not hating on mother Sandra, just elevating Rose]

[Tarsonis]

they have rights. if you knew, you'd already know that's been part of the debate.

The amendment could help prevent them from backsliding.

The 14th amendment already does that

[Tarsonis]

When a socialist society is required to support everything and everyone, it collapses.

What “socialist society” are we talking about here? Are you just subtweeting the old Red Army budget or something?

Say 5% of people in a socialist society decide to neither work nor obey social standards/the law. Not only would the remaining populace have to take on the responsibilities for that 5%, but their quality of life would be reduced (people who disobey standards cause social chaos). That would be catastrophic for the system, because those most committed to upholding it would be the ones punished for the lax behavior of others.

Say I had twenty watermelons, and I gave you nine. That would be catastrophic for me, because I would then have fewer watermelons.

they have rights. if you knew, you'd already know that's been part of the debate.

Rose Byrne does NOT have rights; if she did, she would be paid the same as Sandra Bullock (she has the range!). [not hating on mother Sandra, just elevating Rose]

Sounds like she needs a better agent, not a constitutional amendment

[Narland]

they have rights. if you knew, you'd already know that's been part of the debate.

The amendment could help prevent them from backsliding.

i do not want to watch Mrs. America, but probably will have to. RIP Mrs Schlafly.

[Umeria]

Why should we care about philosophical consistency? If you put down the textbooks and look at how these things operate in the real world, it's pretty clear that "pursuing your own business" translates to making poor people's lives miserable and trashing the ecosystem, distinct effects that are entirely separable from things like abortion and LGBT rights. And the whole point of socialism is a rejection of individualist standards. It supports "out of whack lifestyles" because it supports everyone regardless of lifestyle.

I am talking about the real world.
When a socialist society is required to support everything and everyone, it collapses. Say 5% of people in a socialist society decide to neither work nor obey social standards/the law. Not only would the remaining populace have to take on the responsibilities for that 5%, but their quality of life would be reduced (people who disobey standards cause social chaos). That would be catastrophic for the system, because those most committed to upholding it would be the ones punished for the lax behavior of others.
It's capitalism that allows people to fall through the cracks without it really causing a burden on the system. Now you should see what I mean about capitalism and liberty going together. The system can tolerate people slacking off/causing social chaos because it's not really responsible for their wellbeing. For example, those who don't work in a capitalist society become homeless, at which point they're nobody's responsibility.

You're moving the goalposts here. First it was socialism and personal freedom are naturally opposed to each other, now it's socialism with personal freedom would collapse. Those are two very different statements. Like, plenty of capitalists argue that any form of socialism is doomed to failure, does that mean that there's no such thing as socialism in their conception of things? Of course not.

Also, why are you conflating all forms of personal expression with refusing to work?

[Bombadil]

These stories keep coming out and will absolutely destroy Republicans for what can really only be described as evil at this point..

You’re good on the second part; not too sure about it destroying them though.

For the most part laws don't really affect people in too major a way, or at least a way that's instantly recognisable. This, however, directly impacts both men and women and has horrific consequences. A Democrat female wasn't just voted mayor in Jacksonville for no reason.

[Narland]

I am talking about the real world.
When a socialist society is required to support everything and everyone, it collapses. Say 5% of people in a socialist society decide to neither work nor obey social standards/the law. Not only would the remaining populace have to take on the responsibilities for that 5%, but their quality of life would be reduced (people who disobey standards cause social chaos). That would be catastrophic for the system, because those most committed to upholding it would be the ones punished for the lax behavior of others.
It's capitalism that allows people to fall through the cracks without it really causing a burden on the system. Now you should see what I mean about capitalism and liberty going together. The system can tolerate people slacking off/causing social chaos because it's not really responsible for their wellbeing. For example, those who don't work in a capitalist society become homeless, at which point they're nobody's responsibility.

You're moving the goalposts here. First it was socialism and personal freedom are naturally opposed to each other, now it's socialism with personal freedom would collapse. Those are two very different statements. Like, plenty of capitalists argue that any form of socialism is doomed to failure, does that mean that there's no such thing as socialism in their conception of things? Of course not.

Also, why are you conflating all forms of personal expression with refusing to work?

Re: Conflation of personal expression with refusing to work
I am not the person to whom you are replying, but refusing to work, take a bath, neither cut nor groom one's hair; and live off of love, hope, peace, joy, gasoline fumes and the charity of others in a VW minibus is the best form of personal expression when sticking it to the man -- especially if the man is a stateless state that expects everyone to work according to their abilities but can only receive from that stateless state merely what that stateless state deems that someone needs. The stateless state gets beleaguered, and the vanguard testy/cross/homicidal when their non-serf serfs that actually can work don't make quota (especially because they refuse to do so as part of their self-expression) as it disrupts all of society. When the man being stuck are free and open markets of free and self-interested individuals following (at the very least) the non-aggression principle it harms nobody. The resale value of the VW minibus is destroyed but that is a thing (not a VW Thing but a thing thing) and not a person.

[Umeria]

You're moving the goalposts here. First it was socialism and personal freedom are naturally opposed to each other, now it's socialism with personal freedom would collapse. Those are two very different statements. Like, plenty of capitalists argue that any form of socialism is doomed to failure, does that mean that there's no such thing as socialism in their conception of things? Of course not.

Also, why are you conflating all forms of personal expression with refusing to work?

Re: Conflation of personal expression with refusing to work
I am not the person to whom you are replying, but refusing to work, take a bath, neither cut nor groom one's hair; and live off of love, hope, peace, joy, gasoline fumes and the charity of others in a VW minibus is the best form of personal expression when sticking it to the man -- especially if the man is a stateless state that expects everyone to work according to their abilities but can only receive from that stateless state merely what that stateless state deems that someone needs. But stateless states tend to get beleaguered, and the vanguard testy/cross/homicidal when their non-serf serfs that actually can work don't make quota (especially by refusing to do so) as it disrupts all of society. When the man is a free and open market of free and self-interested individuals following (at the very least) the non-aggression principle, sticking it to the man volitionally hurts nobody. The resale value of the VW minibus is destroyed but that is a thing (not a VW Thing but a thing thing) and not a person.

Doesn't answer the question at all. Again, the existence of one specific form of personal expression which involves refusing to work doesn't imply that all nonstandard forms of personal expression are anti-work. You need the latter to show that socialism would collapse if it had personal freedom.

[Corrian]

DeSantis is somehow easily the worst governor in the US, which is saying something.

[San Lumen]

So the people the majority voted for can’t get anything done because a consensus isn’t likely to be reached?

If that is what their constituents want and if they have sufficient numbers to prevent a quorum. This is part of what it means to say elections have consequences.

Of course this comes with major drawbacks, as bills that their constituents do want passed cannot be passed. They get to decide what is most important and weigh the wants of the constituents. This approach makes it much harder to negotiate with the majority to get things they want passed.

How do you know it’s what their constituents want? A referendum was passed because the people are sick and tired of the childish behavior.

The majority is being prevented from doing anything of note. The Republicans in Oregon are not interested in compromise.

[Ifreann]

If that is what their constituents want and if they have sufficient numbers to prevent a quorum. This is part of what it means to say elections have consequences.

Of course this comes with major drawbacks, as bills that their constituents do want passed cannot be passed. They get to decide what is most important and weigh the wants of the constituents. This approach makes it much harder to negotiate with the majority to get things they want passed.

How do you know it’s what their constituents want? A referendum was passed because the people are sick and tired of the childish behavior.

The majority is being prevented from doing anything of note. The Republicans in Oregon are not interested in compromise.

How indeed do we know what their constituents want? Maybe there should be an election.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

RIP Mrs Schlafly.

Lmfao

[The Rio Grande River Basin]

DeSantis is somehow easily the worst governor in the US, which is saying something.

Sarah Palin walks in rapping in a pink bear costume

[Gravlen]

DeSantis is somehow easily the worst governor in the US, which is saying something.

Sarah Palin walks in rapping in a pink bear costume

Say what you will about Palin, but she at least resigned after two and a half years as governor. Thats a point in her column.

[The Rio Grande River Basin]

Sarah Palin walks in rapping in a pink bear costume

Say what you will about Palin, but she at least resigned after two and a half years as governor. Thats a point in her column.

Uhhhhh…

Think shit governors think shit governors think shit governors

Evan Mecham? Rod Blagojevich?

[EuroStralia]

DeSantis is somehow easily the worst governor in the US, which is saying something.

There are worse governors in the US, past or oresant, than DeSantis.

[The Rio Grande River Basin]

DeSantis is somehow easily the worst governor in the US, which is saying something.

There are worse governors in the US, past or oresant, than DeSantis.

Not too many, if we remove the open white supremacy (which mind you, is only slightly more open than DeSantis). Maybe uh…George Wallace?

[Hispida]

Say what you will about Palin, but she at least resigned after two and a half years as governor. Thats a point in her column.

Uhhhhh…

Think shit governors think shit governors think shit governors

Evan Mecham? Rod Blagojevich?

milledge luke bonham.

[The Holy Therns]

Sarah Palin walks in rapping in a pink bear costume

Say what you will about Palin, but she at least resigned after two and a half years as governor. Thats a point in her column.

Clearly even Sarah Palin had too high standards to subject Alaska to a full Sarah Palin term.

[The Rio Grande River Basin]

Say what you will about Palin, but she at least resigned after two and a half years as governor. Thats a point in her column.

Clearly even Sarah Palin had too high standards to subject Alaska to a full Sarah Palin term.

*sides enter orbit.

[Pizza Friday Forever91]

what was Sarah Palin thinking when she decided to run again in 2022 for representative?