Journal Marxist Hacker 42's Journal: Two questions to make the Wing Nuts Angry 46
On the Right- What, to you, in freedom requires us to worship at the altar of central banking and support the fraud of Wall Street?
And on the Left- What, to you, in freedom for women, requires the human sacrifice of non-medically necessary abortion?
If I understood the answers to those two philosophical questions, I'd be a lot more at peace with America in general.
And on the Left- What, to you, in freedom for women, requires the human sacrifice of non-medically necessary abortion?
If I understood the answers to those two philosophical questions, I'd be a lot more at peace with America in general.
Can't answer the first (Score:3, Informative)
Not just for women. From a legal point of view, the State deciding what you can or can't do with your uterus is a slippery slope. Same arguments can be applied to many other organs.
Second, you call it a human. I'll wait until it can breathe on its own before I do that.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, that's simply not good enough. At least, not from a Darwinian/modern genetics standpoint. You see, the problem is that every fetus represents a unique genetic mix- another chance for the species to survive. We have no intellectual method of discerning which mutations will help or hurt, aside of course from ones that result in spontaneous abortion. And once we do, we've got an even bigger slippery slope: eugenics.
So, are you pro-eugenics?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's just an upsell of the myth that 'every sperm is sacred'. Using that rationale, we should basically never do anything for fear of fucking with some perfect symbyosis that will lead us to nirvana. Bill Hicks said it best:
Re: (Score:2)
That's just an upsell of the myth that 'every sperm is sacred'. Using that rationale, we should basically never do anything for fear of fucking with some perfect symbyosis that will lead us to nirvana.
No, actually, using that rationale we should each be fucking as much as possible- in hopes of creating the messiah that will lead us to nirvana.
Using your rationale that NOBODY is special, however, you've got a damn good argument for suicide- because using THAT rationale, you aren't special ei
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Now you're starting to get the idea! BTW, your advocating for more sex is hilarious. Call me when you set up your first orgy!
So either you believe in your own need to keep living, or you don't believe in *anybody's* need to live. Which is it?
No one has any need to keep on living
Re: (Score:2)
Now you're starting to get the idea! BTW, your advocating for more sex is hilarious. Call me when you set up your first orgy!
Well, that gets into my definition of sex- which takes about 15-28 years longer than yours (see, it includes raising the kid) when done properly.
No one has any need to keep on living past their own selfishness. I'm only still around because I'm a curious motherfucker.
Where, you see, under my definition, each member of a species is unique, and contribu
Re: (Score:2)
Fixed that for you. Seriously, it's 2009. There is such a thing as just getting your rocks off for the fun of it which, while motivated by the same chemical impulses that lead us to procreate, has now evolved into its own separate thing. We have the technology, we can get our endorphin highs without the attendant meatbags.
Where, you see, under my definition, each member of a species is unique, and contributes to the evolution of that species.
I'
Re: (Score:2)
Fixed that for you. Seriously, it's 2009. There is such a thing as just getting your rocks off for the fun of it which, while motivated by the same chemical impulses that lead us to procreate, has now evolved into its own separate thing. We have the technology, we can get our endorphin highs without the attendant meatbags.
No, that's technology, not evolution- and is at the center of the problem as I see it- taking control over something that we have neither the wisdom nor the will to use properly.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sez you. I know how and when to use a condom, it's not that hard. And who's to say we didn't evolve the need for that technology? Overpopulation is a bitch.
And so we should thus remove 25% of that contribution at random?
Better at random, at least for the terms that you've stipulated. Besides, you're making a fundament
Re: (Score:2)
Sez you. I know how and when to use a condom, it's not that hard.
If the condom was effective, you wouldn't need the abortion?
And who's to say we didn't evolve the need for that technology? Overpopulation is a bitch.
Only to the overly selfish and greedy, isn't that right?
Better at random, at least for the terms that you've stipulated. Besides, you're making a fundamental error. It's not that we should be aborting 25%, but that we are. And quite frankly, I do
Re: (Score:2)
And who's to say we didn't evolve the need for that technology? Overpopulation is a bitch.
Evolution doesn't work like that. Evolution is entirely about procreating and having the children live long enough to procreate themselves.
Say the trees' lower branches are getting a little short because all the raffes have eaten the lower leaves. All the raffes who can't reach the leaves die, those with longer necks (accidents of nature) live. The dead ones don't procreate, the ones with longer necks do.
The ones with
Re: (Score:2)
Get on the African continent and say that again.
And thus, you'd concede that the problem isn't one of privacy or freedom, but rather, economics?
Nope, all three. Why are you trying to oversimplify things?
Re: (Score:2)
Get on the African continent and say that again.
I was thinking mainly of them when I said it! Africa easily has more than enough farmland to feed all of it's millions of people- but due to individual selfishness and greed, the grand majority are starving while the few successful farmers raise coffee, chocolate, and sugar cane for export to Europe and America.
The few countries that have decided, instead, to raise food for their own people first and export only out of their surplus are doing
Re: (Score:2)
Did you know that every time a guy comes, he comes 200 million sperm?
I'd say one out of two hundred million is pretty damned special!
Re: (Score:1)
>And once we do, we've got an even bigger slippery slope: eugenics.
Philosophically or ethically speaking, life must have started millions of years ago on the globe or elsewhere in the universe. Biologically speaking, you are right, individual life starts at the moment of pregnancy. We all ought not to resort to abortion which stops the natural growth of individuals. But socially or economically speaking, life stats at the moment of their birth.
Euginics is a science to prevent genetically defective ones f
lousy questions (Score:2)
To the first, the obvious answer is "to correct heavy handed government interference of the past" (Oddly enough, they reject that argument when used in favor of Affirmative Action"
To the second, I reject your concept of 'human'.
Re: (Score:2)
Your answer to the second is far more interesting than the first. Can you give another definition of human that does not include references to species or DNA, since the fetus is homo sapiens genetically and by inheritance?
Re: (Score:2)
Beats the shit out of me. I'm just playing devil's advocate.
But you aren't going to be provacative if your audience dimisses out of hand the assumptions in your post. If someone on the left doesn't share you idea of 'human', why should they get angry?
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, you're right- I'm making the assumption that if they reject *my* definition of human (which is strongly related to genetics and species), that they must have a definition that they think is better. I'd sure like to know what that definition is- anger has nothing to do with it!
Re: (Score:2)
anger has nothing to do with it!
Psst! Reread the title of this blog entry.
Re: (Score:2)
Right! trouble is, I'm not a wing nut- I'm stuck dead center of the road.
Re: (Score:2)
Erm, I don't think you're a wing nut (which is why you're on my friends list), but you are hardly a centrist, either. It's an easy mistake to make; like looking at all the galaxies in the universe fleeing directly away from you and assuming that you must be at the center without realizing that it's because the universe itself is expanding.
Re: (Score:1)
>I'm stuck dead center of the road.
One thing that amazed me is your confidence - you are neither right nor left but a middle. You are a very liberal person who pretend to be a bit conservative. From my impressions, of course.
Answering the banking question (Score:2)
For context - I am on the Right (as opposed to the Left) side. I personally don't think we should have bailed out the banks or done Wall St. any favors. In a capitalist system, you either succeed on your merits or choke on your own vomit, and what we did was sell our soul and reward the fraud and greed by giving them a phone-a-friend lifeline. As far as I am concerned, the banks that screwed up should go out of business (but FDIC insures up to 100k so no one would be left absolutely destitute) and those peo
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, let's go a step deeper. Supposedly, a bank that is *only* overleveraged 10:1 (has only lent out 10x the amount of money they have in deposits) is still solvent (note, the bailouts so far have only been to bring the banks *back to that level*). This is due to the miracle of compound interest- in which case the little guy who is forced to borrow to live (and there are such people) is charged even more money to do that borrowing.
Why not, instead, skip the banks altogether, print up expiring money
Re: (Score:2)
So you're advocating hiding money in your mattress and then once a year going to a central money station where anything you have saved gets traded for new bills? How would you *really* save anything?
Kiss the idea of writing checks goodbye... Pay cash for your bills and either hand-deliver or hope your mail is not stolen.
And how would you deal with the notion of credit - if there is no
Re: (Score:2)
So you're advocating hiding money in your mattress and then once a year going to a central money station where anything you have saved gets traded for new bills? How would you *really* save anything?
You shouldn't need to save anything. The market itself should provide you with a job, for which you get income, and you spend income for what you need.
Kiss the idea of writing checks goodbye... Pay cash for your bills and either hand-deliver or hope your mail is not stolen.
Yep-
Re: (Score:2)
Because it has a fantastic profit margin.
Re: (Score:2)
Because it has a fantastic profit margin.
Some profit margins are nothing more than fraud.
Re: (Score:2)
There will come a time when you can no longer work. At that time, what happens? You cannot assume that a family member will care for you.
Also, I see a real problem here. Some people work harder than others and do more strenuous/dangerous work. If there is no compensation for that differential and you only get compensation for "what you need" then there will b
Re: (Score:2)
There will come a time when you can no longer work. At that time, what happens? You cannot assume that a family member will care for you.
:-) In a way, these are related.
You can if you haven't aborted them all.
Also, I see a real problem here. Some people work harder than others and do more strenuous/dangerous work. If there is no compensation for that differential and you only get compensation for "what you need" then there will be nothing left for luxury. As a result, there will b
Re: (Score:2)
the above was me. Must have checked AC by mistake.
Re: (Score:2)
why should anybody be allowed to buy anything that they don't have the money to buy?
Very few power plants or chip fabs will get built in a world like this.
Re: (Score:2)
Very few power plants or chip fabs will get built in a world like this.
I'm not so sure of that- if one had enough interest, one would still find a way. And it might be a lot more efficient of a way than, say, running down to the bank and borrowing a billion or so.
Re: (Score:2)
The sucky part is that innocent people would be the collateral damage. But, that is a side effect of doing business in a capitalistic system. They're called "risks" for a reason.
Why should I suffer because YOU took a risk? YOU are the only one who should pay for losing YOUR bets. Your gambling losses shouldn't affect me at all.
That said, I agree that the bailout was a clusterfuck that rewarded incompetence, greed, and in many cases downright dishonesty. The people the banks screwed over should have gottan a
Re: (Score:2)
There is no investment scheme without some kind of risk, even if it's simply dumping money in a savings account in a federally insured bank. Your part of the responsibility is in choosing the bank. I know that sounds like a snide answer, but it's the reality of it.
I agree, you shouldn't have to suffer when someone makes a fraudulent investment or embezzles th
Re: (Score:2)
One of the recent, more inventive ideas I've seen to avoid this in the future is to compartmentalize the economy. Four different classes of money, for the four basic uses:
Class A is solid value storage money- probably a precious metal of some sort. All other classes are indexed to this, and the only way to convert money between the classes is through this class.
Class B is everyday business money- good for payment of all debts, public and private, except for the uses of the remaining two classes. Your pay
moof (Score:1)
Not a damn thing. Freedom is for the citizens -- individual people -- not investment banks. I think the Right needs to form a new party and write a platform that keeps much of the social positions (but with a restored, un- watered-down (for candidate McCain) pro-life plank) of the GOP but departs considerably in economic positions. Capitalism is a means to an end, not an end in
On the right... (Score:2)
The concept of a Central Bank and a financial market, like Wall Street, are two different things. Each can, and has in the past, existed without the other.
There is nothing inherently wrong with a financial market. The problem comes when people who have no idea what they are doing, try and invest. Proper investing, thru stocks, bonds, futures and other financial instruments, requires a great deal of specialized knowledge. Done properly, you need to know quite a bit about not only what you are investing i
Re: (Score:2)
The concept of a Central Bank and a financial market, like Wall Street, are two different things. Each can, and has in the past, existed without the other.
True, but both are based on a similar fraud- the offer of profit without working.
There is nothing inherently wrong with a financial market. The problem comes when people who have no idea what they are doing, try and invest. Proper investing, thru stocks, bonds, futures and other financial instruments, requires a great deal of spec
Re: (Score:2)
A true not-for-profit business would have NO profits, and pay all workers equally regardless of management or worker status.
And would go out of business in very short order, because you aren't allowing them any savings in case things go sour one year.
As for paying all workers equally regardless of status...when all workers are equally capable of doing the same jobs with equal skill, efficiency and resource cost, sure. Until then, you're crazy. If I were to quit computers and enter the carpentry business,
Re: (Score:2)
And would go out of business in very short order, because you aren't allowing them any savings in case things go sour one year.
Well, it's a true not-for-profit business, right? Which means it's basically a charity. A sour year means you run more fundraisers.
As for paying all workers equally regardless of status...when all workers are equally capable of doing the same jobs with equal skill, efficiency and resource cost, sure.
You think the money is paying for skill, efficie
Re: (Score:2)
The only thing you're really paying labor for is TIME.
And a more skilled person can complete the same amount of work in less time. What would take a 20-year carpentry veteran a day to finish would most likely take me a week or two. Thus, his time is more valuable and worth more money.
Of course we believe that, because they say so, right? Oh yes, and they were audited- probably using the same standards as Enron.
Yes, they are audited. In fact, you can get the numbers from both the Treasury Dept. and the Fe
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, they are audited. In fact, you can get the numbers from both the Treasury Dept. and the Fed's annual report -- two difference sources. Feel free to track it in the GAO report to Congress, also.
Yep, they're audited by two companies that can be well trusted to hide any error- and by "accounting standards set by the FED board", a sure conflict of interest. Neat how they sneak that in.
Communism's fatal flaw -- no incentive to do any more than the absolute bare minimum because ther
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you care, if you're getting what you need?
Because there are things I want but don't need and how else am I going to get them? The word "need" can be interpreted in a very strict manner. The short story you referenced when starting The Oregon Project took it to the extreme you seem to be pointing to. Might as well build a regulated mega-ghetto and move everyone there, issuing them uniforms and only exactly what they need to survive.
As far as advancing a topic and the sum of human knowledge, yes tha