ASSUMING DIRECT CONTROL.
Started by Mona, November 16, 2011, 08:46:14 PM
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: Michio Kaku on November 29, 2011, 11:44:59 PMScaling back the size of the government could have some negative repercussions.
Quote from: Chris93 on January 31, 2012, 06:58:51 PMWell well, SOPA got delayed (no surprise there) are they honestly gonna just keep delaying it? Let it die out already. I kinda find it funny how the internet is one of the only things we are free to use without a radical limitation, but now the government is trying to place a limitation on it which would make us all have no voice in the internet. Violation of the First Amendment much?
Quote from: Pennington on January 31, 2012, 07:48:37 PMIt's entirely argumentative with the First Amendment, but hopefully it'll keep getting pushed back until it kind of just dwindles out and people forget all about it.
Quote from: IhsoyOhcysp on December 02, 2011, 12:14:22 AMIt could. Not scaling it back has and will continue to do so.I'm (completely seriously) interested to know what you think the negative repercussions will be. I've listed some of the more common objections I get when talking about this below:1) If income disparity/"equality"/etc. is your main beef, a libertarian or anarcho-capitalist philosophy won't address that concern, largely because they are concerned with freedom from coercion by others, not guaranteeing resources necessary to accomplish all of one's desires that progressivism loves to espouse that it will provide (and will never succeed in providing). So, yes, if you're worried about the Medicare/Medicaid/Food stamp/government student loan/entitlement x gravy train stopping, you frankly shouldn't agree with my position. I do, however, would like to make note of the extreme cognitive dissonance in the minds of people who go "stop special interests" while willingly taking advantage of every possible program that Uncle Sam offers.Further applying this to social issues (and because everything on this forum inevitably devolves into discussion of sodomy, anyway):Negative liberty: Thou shalt not stop two men from sleeping together and saying they love each other just because thou findesth it icky.Positive liberty: Thou shalt provide two men in love with the state-sponsored perks that thou givesth straight couples.For the record: I don't think there should be any state-sponsored marriage whether hetero or homosexual and if people are worried about things like spousal visitation privileges in hospitals, they are more than capable of:a) Going to a hospital that won't go "EWWWW! I DON'T LIKE YOU BECAUSE OF [REASON HERE]!"andb) Drawing up a contract that espouses which rights, financial or social, they want to jointly share.2) If you're worried about further economic instability, I would argue that the Fed and the rest of the government distorts the true worth of the market via a shell game of regulation, redistribution, and controls. You may want to consider reading this for a primer on Austrian economics. The section on the broken window/glazier's fallacy is especially good and pretty much destroys the rationale for economic stimulus.
Quote from: Michio Kaku on February 14, 2012, 07:30:30 AMI couldn't disagree more. This discussion would only be beating a dead horse if the threat wasn't on the horizon at all. The governments of the world are making it clear that they want even more control than they already have all across the board.Call me a nutjob but the reality George Orwell envisioned in 1984 probably isn't too far off if this kind of law gets passed.
Quote from: Pennington on February 14, 2012, 07:35:48 PMI'm still just being hopeful, here.
Quote from: Michio Kaku on February 15, 2012, 09:00:43 AMThat's incredibly optimistic Hero.There's still ACTA.
Quote from: Hero_of_Darkness on February 15, 2012, 08:08:23 AMThat "delay" means that the bill is effectively dead. It will never pass. They're not discussing it or trying to change it. It's simply not going to be voted on. They don't just delay voting due to opposition and later bring it back hoping the opposition will just go away, especially when the opposition includes companies like Google and Microsoft.That said, while the bill itself is gone for good, they may eventually stick the provisions of it into another, more important one that has to be passed. The chances are more 50/50 than anything.
Quote from: Pennington on February 15, 2012, 07:07:59 PMThis is kind of what I'm thinking, though you're explaining it much better than me. I think they realize that they're getting the dirty looks from Google and Microsoft, and they're either going to shelve it permanently or subtly try to bring SOPA's points back through crafty wordplay and loopholes in some future proposal (at which point we'll catch them anyway).In other words I don't think it will be successful, no matter what they call it.
Page created in 0.071 seconds with 19 queries.