x

Deeticky

Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Date Signed Up:3/29/2010
Last Login:9/05/2015
FunnyJunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#13559
Highest Content Rank:#4157
Highest Comment Rank:#416
Content Thumbs: 2400 total,  2750 ,  350
Comment Thumbs: 8835 total,  9978 ,  1143
Content Level Progress: 96% (96/100)
Level 123 Content: Respected Member Of Famiry → Level 124 Content: Respected Member Of Famiry
Comment Level Progress: 12% (12/100)
Level 286 Comments: More Thumbs Than A Hiroshima Survivor → Level 287 Comments: More Thumbs Than A Hiroshima Survivor
Subscribers:0
Content Views:110204
Times Content Favorited:163 times
Total Comments Made:2497
FJ Points:943
Favorite Tags: lol (8) | troll (5) | chan (3) | Four (3) | anonymous (2) | black (2) | Christianity (2) | comic (2) | forever (2) | murder (2)

latest user's comments

#315 - First off, I just want to make sure that I am not coming off l…  [+] (5 new replies) 05/04/2015 on Pretend 0
#322 - rundas (05/08/2015) [-]
No, you didn't sound like you support communism or fascism. But as a student of history you can make general observations about the past. Generally, there is a clear trend with government: the better the intentions, the worse the outcomes. Because all actions, especially those based on moralistic ideals, and not facts, have unintended consequences. People never fundamentally change their behavior, they merely adjust to new circumstances. Any legislation that requires people to change their behavior will fail because people will just find loopholes to adjust around the new rules. Any change in behavior requires coercion; the greater the change, the greater the coercion required. In my mind, all coercion fundamentally erodes our natural liberties. When you want to make citizens "moral" where you believe they weren't previously, that requires the greatest amount of coercion, e.g. gulags, death camps, etc. My point is that no one had better intentions than the communists or fascists. In fact, they wanted most of the same stuff you do, e.g. income equality, a cooperative citizenry, etc.

The point is that government should not be in the business of "fixing" society. We live in a society where prosperity will naturally improve the lives of all, and where it doesn't, we have the freedom to organize and form social movements to correct any remaining evils. The problem of course comes when these movements don't ask the citizens to elect to change their ways, but demand the government force them to change. After all far more evils have been committed in the names of "social justice" on behalf of the government than any actual societal ills.

Yes, I did speak in absolutes, and the Comcast thing is a special case. I don't think you'll find a libertarian out there who opposes anti-monopoly legislation; we oppose crony capitalism more than anyone. I haven't looked too far into the net neutrality thing, but if my suspicions are right I have a feeling the FCC getting involved is like when the Russian people greeted the Nazis as liberators. I have a feeling it's going to bite us in the ass. Also if you think the fed wants nothing more than open internet, don't forget that they've long been pushing for an internet tax.

You talk of the scientific method? Well, when an experiment fails time and again, and is extremely costly to your lab and potentially dangerous to your scientists, most logical people would abandon the experiment.

Yes, there are certain exceptions to rational choice theory. That doesn't void the entire concept. Rather, even in crises, it gives us a model for how people will behave.
Also, if you think people aren't rational, what makes government rational? If people aren't smart enough to make decisions for themselves or with their own money, what makes government so much the wiser?

Also, yes, we need some laws in place to establish that bad behavior is bad (as if citizens can't already tell) but those should just be mandates to punish wrongdoers. Excessive regulation punishes everyone who wants to join the business for the potential of doing harm (and every potential customer as well).
User avatar #323 - Deeticky (05/09/2015) [-]
I have really enjoyed this conversation, my friend. I always enjoy getting to learn about the viewpoints that others hold. I am currently finishing senior paper for my political science degree, and so I need to leave our conversation (I think we both know that we could go on forever). Sadly, economics and the role of government in people's lives are topics that bring up many questions and no easy answers. Although we disagree, I appreciate the fact that you have obviously thought deeply about the subject. Not enough people dive deeply into things like this.
#324 - rundas (05/09/2015) [-]
Great talking to you. Good luck!
#316 - rundas (05/04/2015) [-]
Hm, this is a discussion I would like to continue, but I really need to study for finals tonight and don't need to get distracted. Send me another notification tomorrow and I'll respond to you.
User avatar #321 - Deeticky (05/08/2015) [-]
It's finals season for me too, man. I have really enjoyed the discussion!
#308 - It's interesting that you brought up Singapore. Singapore actu…  [+] (7 new replies) 05/02/2015 on Pretend 0
#310 - rundas (05/02/2015) [-]
Yes, Singapore has a high poverty rate now. I guarantee you it was a lot higher in the early 1900s, and it's a lot lower than it would be if they didn't pull off the miracle they did. The point wasn't that Singapore is some utopia, it's that it's a successful economy, when it really shouldn't be. It doesn't have too many resources or anything. The only reason it's successful is because it liberalized its economy.

No one has proved sufficiently that the New Deal improved or harmed economic recovery. And it was the biggest spending regime in history. I think the fact that doing EVERYTHING the progressives recommend to "fix" the economy, even violating the Constitution and our judicial system to do it, is pretty damning. Also, I'm gonna need some statistics to show that the "safety net" has actually decreased "starvation" rates, if that was even a common trend before Fed came down on his white horse to save us.

From the graphs I see on poverty rate, it seems like poverty was already declining tremendously in the years before the War on Poverty. Also I don't see any statistics before 1959, so I really can't take your word that poverty dropped after the New Deal. If anything, it looks like the decline in poverty stagnated around 1965. Can't say much about the Reagan years, the difference isn't enough to say it's entirely his fault. Plus, Reagan did a lot of things I don't approve of, so I won't bother being his apologist. Anyway if I had to guess it probably came from the "shock" following the decline of the welfare state (which, if you recall, was reformed to its current state under Clinton, so I don't really see how that growth, even assuming it had nothing to do with the tech bubble, would be seen as a victory for big gubmint).

>1890s had higher unemployment
Yes, because there was the Panic of 1893, which, if you recall, went away on its own when government didn't try to "save" us. It's almost like there's some kind of natural cycle or something.

And I disagree 100% on regulations. First off, I don't think it's government that guarantees dignity, it's the free market. I don't want a government that's responsible for my dignity. It's been tried before, you could check out a few mass graves in Germany and Eastern Europe to figure out how that goes.

Also, regulations, without exception, drive out small businesses and help the big corporations that progressives claim to despise so. It takes 65 days to set up a lemonade stand if you follow the government's directives. It takes a million dollars to set up a taxi business in New York. Tell me again how this is necessary to guarantee the dignity of the employee.
Also like with disability laws, that ended up dropping employment among disabled Americans by 20%. The problem with all these laws is that they have good intentions. Good intentions, and no foresight whatsoever, so that the unforeseen consequences almost always hurt the people they're supposed to protect.

How about instead of these proactive laws that just destroy entrepreneurship and innovation, we rely on the fact that no business owner in America today could keep up a business model that hurts its employees or customers? Even if they did manage to coax their employees to keep working and their customers to come back, seems to me like they'd be sued out of their ass. You have to assume that people are rational actors and don't require a nanny state to live.

Again, gonna need proof that economic regulation causes reduction in poverty. Hell, I've seen the opposite. Look at any country in Asia. The less they planned their economies, the more business-friendly the became, the richer they became. That's the reason Asia isn't in Africa-tier poverty today.
User avatar #315 - Deeticky (05/04/2015) [-]
First off, I just want to make sure that I am not coming off like I support extremely heavy government involvement in all facets of life. Obviously I support progressive ideas, which you do not. That's ok. There is nothing wrong with civil disagreement. However, the comparisons you tried to make between the ideas I am advocating for and the ideas of Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia worry me. I would never advocate that the United States become fascist or communist. If I somehow came off that way, I apologize. If you need me to clarify anything, please ask questions.

Here's an article on how safety net policies have reduced poverty: www.pewtrusts.org/en/Research-and-Analysis/Blogs/Stateline/2014/10/28/How-the-Safety-Net-Cuts-Poverty-Rates

You say that regulations hurt small businesses "without exception." I would recommend that you be careful to not speak in absolutes like that, as all it takes is one example of a regulation helping a small business to disprove your claim. I think a good example are the recent rules put in place by the FCC (a regulatory body) which prevented Comcast from selectively raising or lowering the speed-of-access to certain websites. Had Comcast been allowed to do so, it would have hurt small businesses as they would not be able to afford the faster websites like big corporations would.

You mentioned how you believe that there are "good intentions" behind laws like the ADA. Perhaps then, you would agree that these laws could be further refined, to weed out the parts that hurt people and build upon the parts that help people? That's the scientific method, isn't it? Constant refinement.

Also, mass psychology shows us that people are not generally rational actors on the macro level. (Remember how people were foaming at the mouth with fear and hatred of Muslims after 9/11? A lot of the "national security" laws that came into place afterwards stomped all over the constitution, and people were generally ok with it. Where were the rational actors then?) I understand a lot of people's frustration with government regulations. I think that one of the problems is that a lot of regulatory bodies end up politicized beyond help. I much prefer meritocratic appointment in regulatory bodies. I think a good example of this is Japan's Ministry of Finance. After WW2, the strongly bureaucratic Ministry of Finance became significantly more meritocratic and helped Japan achieve its post-war "miracle economy."

Also, you mentioned lawsuits as a way for employees to make sure they receive proper treatment in the free-market. However, in order for a lawsuit to be viable, there has to be some sort of rule or law to be violated in the first place. If we had no regulation on employment standards, then there would be nothing for these corporations to violate, and therefore no grounds for a lawsuit.
#322 - rundas (05/08/2015) [-]
No, you didn't sound like you support communism or fascism. But as a student of history you can make general observations about the past. Generally, there is a clear trend with government: the better the intentions, the worse the outcomes. Because all actions, especially those based on moralistic ideals, and not facts, have unintended consequences. People never fundamentally change their behavior, they merely adjust to new circumstances. Any legislation that requires people to change their behavior will fail because people will just find loopholes to adjust around the new rules. Any change in behavior requires coercion; the greater the change, the greater the coercion required. In my mind, all coercion fundamentally erodes our natural liberties. When you want to make citizens "moral" where you believe they weren't previously, that requires the greatest amount of coercion, e.g. gulags, death camps, etc. My point is that no one had better intentions than the communists or fascists. In fact, they wanted most of the same stuff you do, e.g. income equality, a cooperative citizenry, etc.

The point is that government should not be in the business of "fixing" society. We live in a society where prosperity will naturally improve the lives of all, and where it doesn't, we have the freedom to organize and form social movements to correct any remaining evils. The problem of course comes when these movements don't ask the citizens to elect to change their ways, but demand the government force them to change. After all far more evils have been committed in the names of "social justice" on behalf of the government than any actual societal ills.

Yes, I did speak in absolutes, and the Comcast thing is a special case. I don't think you'll find a libertarian out there who opposes anti-monopoly legislation; we oppose crony capitalism more than anyone. I haven't looked too far into the net neutrality thing, but if my suspicions are right I have a feeling the FCC getting involved is like when the Russian people greeted the Nazis as liberators. I have a feeling it's going to bite us in the ass. Also if you think the fed wants nothing more than open internet, don't forget that they've long been pushing for an internet tax.

You talk of the scientific method? Well, when an experiment fails time and again, and is extremely costly to your lab and potentially dangerous to your scientists, most logical people would abandon the experiment.

Yes, there are certain exceptions to rational choice theory. That doesn't void the entire concept. Rather, even in crises, it gives us a model for how people will behave.
Also, if you think people aren't rational, what makes government rational? If people aren't smart enough to make decisions for themselves or with their own money, what makes government so much the wiser?

Also, yes, we need some laws in place to establish that bad behavior is bad (as if citizens can't already tell) but those should just be mandates to punish wrongdoers. Excessive regulation punishes everyone who wants to join the business for the potential of doing harm (and every potential customer as well).
User avatar #323 - Deeticky (05/09/2015) [-]
I have really enjoyed this conversation, my friend. I always enjoy getting to learn about the viewpoints that others hold. I am currently finishing senior paper for my political science degree, and so I need to leave our conversation (I think we both know that we could go on forever). Sadly, economics and the role of government in people's lives are topics that bring up many questions and no easy answers. Although we disagree, I appreciate the fact that you have obviously thought deeply about the subject. Not enough people dive deeply into things like this.
#324 - rundas (05/09/2015) [-]
Great talking to you. Good luck!
#316 - rundas (05/04/2015) [-]
Hm, this is a discussion I would like to continue, but I really need to study for finals tonight and don't need to get distracted. Send me another notification tomorrow and I'll respond to you.
User avatar #321 - Deeticky (05/08/2015) [-]
It's finals season for me too, man. I have really enjoyed the discussion!
#232 - If we lived in a perfect world, I would agree with you 100%. U…  [+] (9 new replies) 05/02/2015 on Pretend 0
#274 - rundas (05/02/2015) [-]
On your example: well that relies on a bunch of different factors. Also, you completely ignore the power of competition. Self-interest generally (with exceptions) encourages good treatment of workers. If one company offers no benefits, its competitor will. Assuming it's set in modern America, there'd be plenty of factories to go to, to negotiate a higher wage. And it's not beneficial for employers to have their workers in dangerous environments (assuming, of course, that OSHA is gone along with the minimum wage).

Setting a lower limit for pay IS interfering with negotiation. Getting hired is a negotiation. Let's say I want to get a job, but the economy's bad. The employer can't afford another minimum wage worker, but we both agree that if I were to work for $6.50/hour, I could be hired. He's happy to have an extra worker he can afford, and I'm happy to have a good starting job with a decent wage. But just as sex isn't consensual unless you ask Jesus, a mutually beneficial contract apparently isn't consensual unless government consents. So the government has voided my ability to negotiate my employment. Now, thanks to government, my would-be employer goes without an extra hand, and I go unemployed. No one's happy, except Sugar Daddy Fed, who'll be happy to know that none of his bitches be talkin' to clients without his say-so.
(btw, this was the primary argument against the minimum wage when FDR first introduced it).

Yes, your scenario might be feasible in this completely hypothetical world with no minimum wage. Except, that world isn't hypothetical. We didn't always have a minimum wage. The minimum wage was instituted in the Great Depression. You'll notice that there is no significant increase in quality of labor following the minimum wage laws. Why? Because quality of labor generally has little to do with policy, and a lot to do with economic prosperity.

Who else doesn't have a minimum wage? Singapore. Now, that's not exactly a haven of human rights, but it did pull off possibly the greatest economic miracle in history, literally going from the poorest country in Southeast Asia to the richest.

I'll admit I don't know too much on unions, and I really only know about the impact of unions from this one video, so the video could explain a lot better than me:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mPEdkN5UoU

tl;dw, pretty much just that there's a reverse cause and effect. The "progressive" laws came because of improvements in labor (as a result of greater prosperity) not the other way around.
Also, the idea that unions can stop the mechanization of low-skill labor is fallacious. Yes, they can sue here and there, and force the employers to take employees they neither want nor can afford, but things that go against the interests of employers and the markets can't last for long. The only way to actually prolong the inevitable robot takeover is by allowing employers to actually have an incentive to take on human workers.

OK, I've briefly touched on the economic and legal arguments against it. Now to the most obvious but possibly most controversial argument: at its core, it's bullshit. The economy is ORGANIC, made up of individual people making and selling products and services in ways that are beneficial to them. Obviously, some products and services are worth more than others, whether it be because of quality or demand, or whatever. To say that all labor is equal on the bottom rung is just bafflingly ludicrous. But since our politicians have decided to institute a Keynesian pseudo-economy that treat people as statistic models instead of individuals who respond to incentives, you now have to pay a garage sweeper at some dilapidated repair shop the same as someone who operates a machine that builds expensive cars valuable to the market. Why not have wages set naturally, by the market? That way, there's less crowding out of employment.
User avatar #308 - Deeticky (05/02/2015) [-]
It's interesting that you brought up Singapore. Singapore actually has one of the highest poverty rates compared to other high-income countries (1 in 4 Singaporeans live in poverty).

Yes, the minimum wage came about during the New Deal. The New Deal, along with the Great Society legislation has helped to create a safety net for Americans (Minimum Wage, Welfare, Medicare/Medicaid, etc.). With the safety net in place, a person can look for a job while unemployed without having to fear that their family will starve to death.

In fact, if you look at poverty rates over time in the U.S., you will see that they declined greatly after the New Deal and Great Society legislation came into effect, went back up during the Reagan Presidency, and declined again during the Clinton Era.

Next, I disagree with your notion that removing the minimum wage will necessarily fix unemployment. If you look at U.S. unemployment over time, you'll see that unemployment in the mid-late 1890's was greater than it was in the most recent recession.

Finally, I would recommend that you do some more research on unions when you get the chance. I have seen the John Stossel video before, and though there are some good points brought up, there's a lot of right-wing spinning/lying in there too (Don't worry, MSNBC does the same thing on the left).

You'll find that unions are far from perfect. They can cause problems. However, I see them as our best option at this point. If you look through history and in developing countries right now, you will see that a lack of employment/economic regulation leads to large levels of poverty and high income inequality. While these regulations are a pain in the ass, they also provide the stability that Americans need to live their lives with dignity.
#310 - rundas (05/02/2015) [-]
Yes, Singapore has a high poverty rate now. I guarantee you it was a lot higher in the early 1900s, and it's a lot lower than it would be if they didn't pull off the miracle they did. The point wasn't that Singapore is some utopia, it's that it's a successful economy, when it really shouldn't be. It doesn't have too many resources or anything. The only reason it's successful is because it liberalized its economy.

No one has proved sufficiently that the New Deal improved or harmed economic recovery. And it was the biggest spending regime in history. I think the fact that doing EVERYTHING the progressives recommend to "fix" the economy, even violating the Constitution and our judicial system to do it, is pretty damning. Also, I'm gonna need some statistics to show that the "safety net" has actually decreased "starvation" rates, if that was even a common trend before Fed came down on his white horse to save us.

From the graphs I see on poverty rate, it seems like poverty was already declining tremendously in the years before the War on Poverty. Also I don't see any statistics before 1959, so I really can't take your word that poverty dropped after the New Deal. If anything, it looks like the decline in poverty stagnated around 1965. Can't say much about the Reagan years, the difference isn't enough to say it's entirely his fault. Plus, Reagan did a lot of things I don't approve of, so I won't bother being his apologist. Anyway if I had to guess it probably came from the "shock" following the decline of the welfare state (which, if you recall, was reformed to its current state under Clinton, so I don't really see how that growth, even assuming it had nothing to do with the tech bubble, would be seen as a victory for big gubmint).

>1890s had higher unemployment
Yes, because there was the Panic of 1893, which, if you recall, went away on its own when government didn't try to "save" us. It's almost like there's some kind of natural cycle or something.

And I disagree 100% on regulations. First off, I don't think it's government that guarantees dignity, it's the free market. I don't want a government that's responsible for my dignity. It's been tried before, you could check out a few mass graves in Germany and Eastern Europe to figure out how that goes.

Also, regulations, without exception, drive out small businesses and help the big corporations that progressives claim to despise so. It takes 65 days to set up a lemonade stand if you follow the government's directives. It takes a million dollars to set up a taxi business in New York. Tell me again how this is necessary to guarantee the dignity of the employee.
Also like with disability laws, that ended up dropping employment among disabled Americans by 20%. The problem with all these laws is that they have good intentions. Good intentions, and no foresight whatsoever, so that the unforeseen consequences almost always hurt the people they're supposed to protect.

How about instead of these proactive laws that just destroy entrepreneurship and innovation, we rely on the fact that no business owner in America today could keep up a business model that hurts its employees or customers? Even if they did manage to coax their employees to keep working and their customers to come back, seems to me like they'd be sued out of their ass. You have to assume that people are rational actors and don't require a nanny state to live.

Again, gonna need proof that economic regulation causes reduction in poverty. Hell, I've seen the opposite. Look at any country in Asia. The less they planned their economies, the more business-friendly the became, the richer they became. That's the reason Asia isn't in Africa-tier poverty today.
User avatar #315 - Deeticky (05/04/2015) [-]
First off, I just want to make sure that I am not coming off like I support extremely heavy government involvement in all facets of life. Obviously I support progressive ideas, which you do not. That's ok. There is nothing wrong with civil disagreement. However, the comparisons you tried to make between the ideas I am advocating for and the ideas of Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia worry me. I would never advocate that the United States become fascist or communist. If I somehow came off that way, I apologize. If you need me to clarify anything, please ask questions.

Here's an article on how safety net policies have reduced poverty: www.pewtrusts.org/en/Research-and-Analysis/Blogs/Stateline/2014/10/28/How-the-Safety-Net-Cuts-Poverty-Rates

You say that regulations hurt small businesses "without exception." I would recommend that you be careful to not speak in absolutes like that, as all it takes is one example of a regulation helping a small business to disprove your claim. I think a good example are the recent rules put in place by the FCC (a regulatory body) which prevented Comcast from selectively raising or lowering the speed-of-access to certain websites. Had Comcast been allowed to do so, it would have hurt small businesses as they would not be able to afford the faster websites like big corporations would.

You mentioned how you believe that there are "good intentions" behind laws like the ADA. Perhaps then, you would agree that these laws could be further refined, to weed out the parts that hurt people and build upon the parts that help people? That's the scientific method, isn't it? Constant refinement.

Also, mass psychology shows us that people are not generally rational actors on the macro level. (Remember how people were foaming at the mouth with fear and hatred of Muslims after 9/11? A lot of the "national security" laws that came into place afterwards stomped all over the constitution, and people were generally ok with it. Where were the rational actors then?) I understand a lot of people's frustration with government regulations. I think that one of the problems is that a lot of regulatory bodies end up politicized beyond help. I much prefer meritocratic appointment in regulatory bodies. I think a good example of this is Japan's Ministry of Finance. After WW2, the strongly bureaucratic Ministry of Finance became significantly more meritocratic and helped Japan achieve its post-war "miracle economy."

Also, you mentioned lawsuits as a way for employees to make sure they receive proper treatment in the free-market. However, in order for a lawsuit to be viable, there has to be some sort of rule or law to be violated in the first place. If we had no regulation on employment standards, then there would be nothing for these corporations to violate, and therefore no grounds for a lawsuit.
#322 - rundas (05/08/2015) [-]
No, you didn't sound like you support communism or fascism. But as a student of history you can make general observations about the past. Generally, there is a clear trend with government: the better the intentions, the worse the outcomes. Because all actions, especially those based on moralistic ideals, and not facts, have unintended consequences. People never fundamentally change their behavior, they merely adjust to new circumstances. Any legislation that requires people to change their behavior will fail because people will just find loopholes to adjust around the new rules. Any change in behavior requires coercion; the greater the change, the greater the coercion required. In my mind, all coercion fundamentally erodes our natural liberties. When you want to make citizens "moral" where you believe they weren't previously, that requires the greatest amount of coercion, e.g. gulags, death camps, etc. My point is that no one had better intentions than the communists or fascists. In fact, they wanted most of the same stuff you do, e.g. income equality, a cooperative citizenry, etc.

The point is that government should not be in the business of "fixing" society. We live in a society where prosperity will naturally improve the lives of all, and where it doesn't, we have the freedom to organize and form social movements to correct any remaining evils. The problem of course comes when these movements don't ask the citizens to elect to change their ways, but demand the government force them to change. After all far more evils have been committed in the names of "social justice" on behalf of the government than any actual societal ills.

Yes, I did speak in absolutes, and the Comcast thing is a special case. I don't think you'll find a libertarian out there who opposes anti-monopoly legislation; we oppose crony capitalism more than anyone. I haven't looked too far into the net neutrality thing, but if my suspicions are right I have a feeling the FCC getting involved is like when the Russian people greeted the Nazis as liberators. I have a feeling it's going to bite us in the ass. Also if you think the fed wants nothing more than open internet, don't forget that they've long been pushing for an internet tax.

You talk of the scientific method? Well, when an experiment fails time and again, and is extremely costly to your lab and potentially dangerous to your scientists, most logical people would abandon the experiment.

Yes, there are certain exceptions to rational choice theory. That doesn't void the entire concept. Rather, even in crises, it gives us a model for how people will behave.
Also, if you think people aren't rational, what makes government rational? If people aren't smart enough to make decisions for themselves or with their own money, what makes government so much the wiser?

Also, yes, we need some laws in place to establish that bad behavior is bad (as if citizens can't already tell) but those should just be mandates to punish wrongdoers. Excessive regulation punishes everyone who wants to join the business for the potential of doing harm (and every potential customer as well).
User avatar #323 - Deeticky (05/09/2015) [-]
I have really enjoyed this conversation, my friend. I always enjoy getting to learn about the viewpoints that others hold. I am currently finishing senior paper for my political science degree, and so I need to leave our conversation (I think we both know that we could go on forever). Sadly, economics and the role of government in people's lives are topics that bring up many questions and no easy answers. Although we disagree, I appreciate the fact that you have obviously thought deeply about the subject. Not enough people dive deeply into things like this.
#324 - rundas (05/09/2015) [-]
Great talking to you. Good luck!
#316 - rundas (05/04/2015) [-]
Hm, this is a discussion I would like to continue, but I really need to study for finals tonight and don't need to get distracted. Send me another notification tomorrow and I'll respond to you.
User avatar #321 - Deeticky (05/08/2015) [-]
It's finals season for me too, man. I have really enjoyed the discussion!
#127 - No need to be sarcastic. I think we can have a civil and infor…  [+] (11 new replies) 05/01/2015 on Pretend 0
#137 - rundas (05/01/2015) [-]
I don't see how removing the minimum wage would require child labor. With no minimum wage, you can actually negotiate your contract with your employer without the government intervening (what SHOULD be a fundamental right).

Let's say you have a family of a mom, a dad, two young adult kids, and a young child. With the current laws, employment is tight, and only the dad can be employed, with a minimum wage job, while the mom takes care of the kids. So the total income of the family is $7 an hour.

With no minimum wage, there's more employment opportunities. The dad's employer is grateful for his years of hard work, so he gives him a promotion, and now he makes $10 an hour. The oldest son is able to take over where his father was. Because he didn't do the same work his father did due to inexperience, he only makes $5/hour. The second-youngest son is even more inexperienced, and somewhat incompetent, so he only makes $3/hour. The mom still has a young kid to take care of, and she can't work a full-time job, but because of the lower wages, she can take up a part-time job a few hours a week for $2.50/hour. So now, even though many people make less than $7/hour, the family now makes $20.50/hour. And the young child certainly doesn't have to work.

That's just one example. Obviously some people might be hurt by it, like single-member households living on minimum wage. But if they've been good workers, then probably they'd be given a decent wage for their work, and possibly a promotion. If the boss is just an asshole, or if the person just isn't suited for the job, the boost in employment would allow them to find better pay or more suitable employment. Furthermore, the money employers will save will allow them to give their employees better hours, better benefits, and a better work environment. Also, it will give them less of an incentive to replace human jobs with machines.
User avatar #232 - Deeticky (05/02/2015) [-]
If we lived in a perfect world, I would agree with you 100%. Unfortunately, we do not live in a perfect world. Indeed, there are corporations out there who would treat their employees well and show gratitude for their employees' hard work like you have described. However, there are also a lot of corporations which only care about their bottom line, and that often comes at the expense of employee well-being.

I could certainly see the hypothetical family you came up with existing in a world without minimum wage, but I could just as easily see the family looking something like this:

Dad is an unskilled laborer. He was never able to get very far in school (because he had to spend his childhood working to help support his lower-class family instead of studying), so he doesn't have many marketable skills. Dad works at a factory making $3.00 an hour and receives no benefits (because there are no unions to demand that employees get benefits). Dad has recently been experiencing respiratory issues due to the harsh chemicals he is subjected to every day at work (there are no unions to demand safe working conditions for employees). Unfortunately, the family cannot afford to go to the hospital because they have no insurance. Because of this, both the oldest and the middle sons have quit their schooling to take jobs at the factory. The two sons are young, and don't have children of their own to support. They are angry at their poor, unfortunate lot in life, and are planning to join a violent group of revolutionaries who want to overthrow the government that refuses to support common workers.

Now that was obviously an extreme example, but nonetheless, I see it as being completely feasible in a world without unions and minimum wage. The importance of minimum wage comes from the stability it brings lower-class workers. Also, I disagree with your notion that salary negotiation is a fundamental right. Nowhere in the Bill of Rights is salary negotiation mentioned. Nonetheless, the minimum wage does not prevent people from negotiating their salaries, it only sets the lowest number of dollars they can receive. Finally, because minimum wage and employee unions go hand-in-hand, I think it's worth mentioning that in many cases, unions have been the only thing that prevented employees from being replaced by machines.
#274 - rundas (05/02/2015) [-]
On your example: well that relies on a bunch of different factors. Also, you completely ignore the power of competition. Self-interest generally (with exceptions) encourages good treatment of workers. If one company offers no benefits, its competitor will. Assuming it's set in modern America, there'd be plenty of factories to go to, to negotiate a higher wage. And it's not beneficial for employers to have their workers in dangerous environments (assuming, of course, that OSHA is gone along with the minimum wage).

Setting a lower limit for pay IS interfering with negotiation. Getting hired is a negotiation. Let's say I want to get a job, but the economy's bad. The employer can't afford another minimum wage worker, but we both agree that if I were to work for $6.50/hour, I could be hired. He's happy to have an extra worker he can afford, and I'm happy to have a good starting job with a decent wage. But just as sex isn't consensual unless you ask Jesus, a mutually beneficial contract apparently isn't consensual unless government consents. So the government has voided my ability to negotiate my employment. Now, thanks to government, my would-be employer goes without an extra hand, and I go unemployed. No one's happy, except Sugar Daddy Fed, who'll be happy to know that none of his bitches be talkin' to clients without his say-so.
(btw, this was the primary argument against the minimum wage when FDR first introduced it).

Yes, your scenario might be feasible in this completely hypothetical world with no minimum wage. Except, that world isn't hypothetical. We didn't always have a minimum wage. The minimum wage was instituted in the Great Depression. You'll notice that there is no significant increase in quality of labor following the minimum wage laws. Why? Because quality of labor generally has little to do with policy, and a lot to do with economic prosperity.

Who else doesn't have a minimum wage? Singapore. Now, that's not exactly a haven of human rights, but it did pull off possibly the greatest economic miracle in history, literally going from the poorest country in Southeast Asia to the richest.

I'll admit I don't know too much on unions, and I really only know about the impact of unions from this one video, so the video could explain a lot better than me:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mPEdkN5UoU

tl;dw, pretty much just that there's a reverse cause and effect. The "progressive" laws came because of improvements in labor (as a result of greater prosperity) not the other way around.
Also, the idea that unions can stop the mechanization of low-skill labor is fallacious. Yes, they can sue here and there, and force the employers to take employees they neither want nor can afford, but things that go against the interests of employers and the markets can't last for long. The only way to actually prolong the inevitable robot takeover is by allowing employers to actually have an incentive to take on human workers.

OK, I've briefly touched on the economic and legal arguments against it. Now to the most obvious but possibly most controversial argument: at its core, it's bullshit. The economy is ORGANIC, made up of individual people making and selling products and services in ways that are beneficial to them. Obviously, some products and services are worth more than others, whether it be because of quality or demand, or whatever. To say that all labor is equal on the bottom rung is just bafflingly ludicrous. But since our politicians have decided to institute a Keynesian pseudo-economy that treat people as statistic models instead of individuals who respond to incentives, you now have to pay a garage sweeper at some dilapidated repair shop the same as someone who operates a machine that builds expensive cars valuable to the market. Why not have wages set naturally, by the market? That way, there's less crowding out of employment.
User avatar #308 - Deeticky (05/02/2015) [-]
It's interesting that you brought up Singapore. Singapore actually has one of the highest poverty rates compared to other high-income countries (1 in 4 Singaporeans live in poverty).

Yes, the minimum wage came about during the New Deal. The New Deal, along with the Great Society legislation has helped to create a safety net for Americans (Minimum Wage, Welfare, Medicare/Medicaid, etc.). With the safety net in place, a person can look for a job while unemployed without having to fear that their family will starve to death.

In fact, if you look at poverty rates over time in the U.S., you will see that they declined greatly after the New Deal and Great Society legislation came into effect, went back up during the Reagan Presidency, and declined again during the Clinton Era.

Next, I disagree with your notion that removing the minimum wage will necessarily fix unemployment. If you look at U.S. unemployment over time, you'll see that unemployment in the mid-late 1890's was greater than it was in the most recent recession.

Finally, I would recommend that you do some more research on unions when you get the chance. I have seen the John Stossel video before, and though there are some good points brought up, there's a lot of right-wing spinning/lying in there too (Don't worry, MSNBC does the same thing on the left).

You'll find that unions are far from perfect. They can cause problems. However, I see them as our best option at this point. If you look through history and in developing countries right now, you will see that a lack of employment/economic regulation leads to large levels of poverty and high income inequality. While these regulations are a pain in the ass, they also provide the stability that Americans need to live their lives with dignity.
#310 - rundas (05/02/2015) [-]
Yes, Singapore has a high poverty rate now. I guarantee you it was a lot higher in the early 1900s, and it's a lot lower than it would be if they didn't pull off the miracle they did. The point wasn't that Singapore is some utopia, it's that it's a successful economy, when it really shouldn't be. It doesn't have too many resources or anything. The only reason it's successful is because it liberalized its economy.

No one has proved sufficiently that the New Deal improved or harmed economic recovery. And it was the biggest spending regime in history. I think the fact that doing EVERYTHING the progressives recommend to "fix" the economy, even violating the Constitution and our judicial system to do it, is pretty damning. Also, I'm gonna need some statistics to show that the "safety net" has actually decreased "starvation" rates, if that was even a common trend before Fed came down on his white horse to save us.

From the graphs I see on poverty rate, it seems like poverty was already declining tremendously in the years before the War on Poverty. Also I don't see any statistics before 1959, so I really can't take your word that poverty dropped after the New Deal. If anything, it looks like the decline in poverty stagnated around 1965. Can't say much about the Reagan years, the difference isn't enough to say it's entirely his fault. Plus, Reagan did a lot of things I don't approve of, so I won't bother being his apologist. Anyway if I had to guess it probably came from the "shock" following the decline of the welfare state (which, if you recall, was reformed to its current state under Clinton, so I don't really see how that growth, even assuming it had nothing to do with the tech bubble, would be seen as a victory for big gubmint).

>1890s had higher unemployment
Yes, because there was the Panic of 1893, which, if you recall, went away on its own when government didn't try to "save" us. It's almost like there's some kind of natural cycle or something.

And I disagree 100% on regulations. First off, I don't think it's government that guarantees dignity, it's the free market. I don't want a government that's responsible for my dignity. It's been tried before, you could check out a few mass graves in Germany and Eastern Europe to figure out how that goes.

Also, regulations, without exception, drive out small businesses and help the big corporations that progressives claim to despise so. It takes 65 days to set up a lemonade stand if you follow the government's directives. It takes a million dollars to set up a taxi business in New York. Tell me again how this is necessary to guarantee the dignity of the employee.
Also like with disability laws, that ended up dropping employment among disabled Americans by 20%. The problem with all these laws is that they have good intentions. Good intentions, and no foresight whatsoever, so that the unforeseen consequences almost always hurt the people they're supposed to protect.

How about instead of these proactive laws that just destroy entrepreneurship and innovation, we rely on the fact that no business owner in America today could keep up a business model that hurts its employees or customers? Even if they did manage to coax their employees to keep working and their customers to come back, seems to me like they'd be sued out of their ass. You have to assume that people are rational actors and don't require a nanny state to live.

Again, gonna need proof that economic regulation causes reduction in poverty. Hell, I've seen the opposite. Look at any country in Asia. The less they planned their economies, the more business-friendly the became, the richer they became. That's the reason Asia isn't in Africa-tier poverty today.
User avatar #315 - Deeticky (05/04/2015) [-]
First off, I just want to make sure that I am not coming off like I support extremely heavy government involvement in all facets of life. Obviously I support progressive ideas, which you do not. That's ok. There is nothing wrong with civil disagreement. However, the comparisons you tried to make between the ideas I am advocating for and the ideas of Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia worry me. I would never advocate that the United States become fascist or communist. If I somehow came off that way, I apologize. If you need me to clarify anything, please ask questions.

Here's an article on how safety net policies have reduced poverty: www.pewtrusts.org/en/Research-and-Analysis/Blogs/Stateline/2014/10/28/How-the-Safety-Net-Cuts-Poverty-Rates

You say that regulations hurt small businesses "without exception." I would recommend that you be careful to not speak in absolutes like that, as all it takes is one example of a regulation helping a small business to disprove your claim. I think a good example are the recent rules put in place by the FCC (a regulatory body) which prevented Comcast from selectively raising or lowering the speed-of-access to certain websites. Had Comcast been allowed to do so, it would have hurt small businesses as they would not be able to afford the faster websites like big corporations would.

You mentioned how you believe that there are "good intentions" behind laws like the ADA. Perhaps then, you would agree that these laws could be further refined, to weed out the parts that hurt people and build upon the parts that help people? That's the scientific method, isn't it? Constant refinement.

Also, mass psychology shows us that people are not generally rational actors on the macro level. (Remember how people were foaming at the mouth with fear and hatred of Muslims after 9/11? A lot of the "national security" laws that came into place afterwards stomped all over the constitution, and people were generally ok with it. Where were the rational actors then?) I understand a lot of people's frustration with government regulations. I think that one of the problems is that a lot of regulatory bodies end up politicized beyond help. I much prefer meritocratic appointment in regulatory bodies. I think a good example of this is Japan's Ministry of Finance. After WW2, the strongly bureaucratic Ministry of Finance became significantly more meritocratic and helped Japan achieve its post-war "miracle economy."

Also, you mentioned lawsuits as a way for employees to make sure they receive proper treatment in the free-market. However, in order for a lawsuit to be viable, there has to be some sort of rule or law to be violated in the first place. If we had no regulation on employment standards, then there would be nothing for these corporations to violate, and therefore no grounds for a lawsuit.
#322 - rundas (05/08/2015) [-]
No, you didn't sound like you support communism or fascism. But as a student of history you can make general observations about the past. Generally, there is a clear trend with government: the better the intentions, the worse the outcomes. Because all actions, especially those based on moralistic ideals, and not facts, have unintended consequences. People never fundamentally change their behavior, they merely adjust to new circumstances. Any legislation that requires people to change their behavior will fail because people will just find loopholes to adjust around the new rules. Any change in behavior requires coercion; the greater the change, the greater the coercion required. In my mind, all coercion fundamentally erodes our natural liberties. When you want to make citizens "moral" where you believe they weren't previously, that requires the greatest amount of coercion, e.g. gulags, death camps, etc. My point is that no one had better intentions than the communists or fascists. In fact, they wanted most of the same stuff you do, e.g. income equality, a cooperative citizenry, etc.

The point is that government should not be in the business of "fixing" society. We live in a society where prosperity will naturally improve the lives of all, and where it doesn't, we have the freedom to organize and form social movements to correct any remaining evils. The problem of course comes when these movements don't ask the citizens to elect to change their ways, but demand the government force them to change. After all far more evils have been committed in the names of "social justice" on behalf of the government than any actual societal ills.

Yes, I did speak in absolutes, and the Comcast thing is a special case. I don't think you'll find a libertarian out there who opposes anti-monopoly legislation; we oppose crony capitalism more than anyone. I haven't looked too far into the net neutrality thing, but if my suspicions are right I have a feeling the FCC getting involved is like when the Russian people greeted the Nazis as liberators. I have a feeling it's going to bite us in the ass. Also if you think the fed wants nothing more than open internet, don't forget that they've long been pushing for an internet tax.

You talk of the scientific method? Well, when an experiment fails time and again, and is extremely costly to your lab and potentially dangerous to your scientists, most logical people would abandon the experiment.

Yes, there are certain exceptions to rational choice theory. That doesn't void the entire concept. Rather, even in crises, it gives us a model for how people will behave.
Also, if you think people aren't rational, what makes government rational? If people aren't smart enough to make decisions for themselves or with their own money, what makes government so much the wiser?

Also, yes, we need some laws in place to establish that bad behavior is bad (as if citizens can't already tell) but those should just be mandates to punish wrongdoers. Excessive regulation punishes everyone who wants to join the business for the potential of doing harm (and every potential customer as well).
User avatar #323 - Deeticky (05/09/2015) [-]
I have really enjoyed this conversation, my friend. I always enjoy getting to learn about the viewpoints that others hold. I am currently finishing senior paper for my political science degree, and so I need to leave our conversation (I think we both know that we could go on forever). Sadly, economics and the role of government in people's lives are topics that bring up many questions and no easy answers. Although we disagree, I appreciate the fact that you have obviously thought deeply about the subject. Not enough people dive deeply into things like this.
#324 - rundas (05/09/2015) [-]
Great talking to you. Good luck!
#316 - rundas (05/04/2015) [-]
Hm, this is a discussion I would like to continue, but I really need to study for finals tonight and don't need to get distracted. Send me another notification tomorrow and I'll respond to you.
User avatar #321 - Deeticky (05/08/2015) [-]
It's finals season for me too, man. I have really enjoyed the discussion!
#118 - Having low/no minimum wage is how you get sweat shops like Chi…  [+] (13 new replies) 05/01/2015 on Pretend 0
#121 - rundas (05/01/2015) [-]
Wait, so if China just waged their minimum wage, everyone would be richer? You genius, you figured out how to hack the economy! Just raise wages and somehow everything just works out!

Why do you think these people WILLINGLY work at these sweatshops? They're not rounded up and enslaved. They do it because it's a better living than whatever alternative they might have.

When people work at industrial jobs:
>women get more independence
>child labor reduces (yes, there is some child labor at these factories, but there's more in agricultural economies. As families get richer, they can pull their kids out of work. Look at child labor statistics over time in Vietnam).
>more goods are available
And so many more benefits.
What China and Southeast Asia are going through is the exact same transition we went through in the 1800s. But we're prosperous as fuck now, and have excellent quality of labor. And not because of government or unions, like liberals would have you believe. Because we got RICHER, which allows us more leisure. All these countries know this, and they willingly go through this transition. Why deny them the wealth that we have?
User avatar #127 - Deeticky (05/01/2015) [-]
No need to be sarcastic. I think we can have a civil and informative discussion without engaging in ad-hominem attacks.

You're right, China is still going through it's industrialization. That is, indeed, one of the reasons that wages are so low there. However, the United States is no longer going through it's industrialization. We are post-industrial. If you look at every post-industrial country around the world, you will see that labor laws and unions are part of the standard post-industrial economy. The reasons for that is that there is now enough money to provide a decent quality of life for each working person instead of having an extremely large rich-poor gap like we had in the 1800s and like China has now.

That's the argument I was trying to make with my China example. By completely removing the minimum wage, you would be necessitating things such as child labor because there would be no other way for low-income families to make enough money to survive. You would, in effect, be reversing the progress that we have made as a post-industrial country.
#137 - rundas (05/01/2015) [-]
I don't see how removing the minimum wage would require child labor. With no minimum wage, you can actually negotiate your contract with your employer without the government intervening (what SHOULD be a fundamental right).

Let's say you have a family of a mom, a dad, two young adult kids, and a young child. With the current laws, employment is tight, and only the dad can be employed, with a minimum wage job, while the mom takes care of the kids. So the total income of the family is $7 an hour.

With no minimum wage, there's more employment opportunities. The dad's employer is grateful for his years of hard work, so he gives him a promotion, and now he makes $10 an hour. The oldest son is able to take over where his father was. Because he didn't do the same work his father did due to inexperience, he only makes $5/hour. The second-youngest son is even more inexperienced, and somewhat incompetent, so he only makes $3/hour. The mom still has a young kid to take care of, and she can't work a full-time job, but because of the lower wages, she can take up a part-time job a few hours a week for $2.50/hour. So now, even though many people make less than $7/hour, the family now makes $20.50/hour. And the young child certainly doesn't have to work.

That's just one example. Obviously some people might be hurt by it, like single-member households living on minimum wage. But if they've been good workers, then probably they'd be given a decent wage for their work, and possibly a promotion. If the boss is just an asshole, or if the person just isn't suited for the job, the boost in employment would allow them to find better pay or more suitable employment. Furthermore, the money employers will save will allow them to give their employees better hours, better benefits, and a better work environment. Also, it will give them less of an incentive to replace human jobs with machines.
User avatar #232 - Deeticky (05/02/2015) [-]
If we lived in a perfect world, I would agree with you 100%. Unfortunately, we do not live in a perfect world. Indeed, there are corporations out there who would treat their employees well and show gratitude for their employees' hard work like you have described. However, there are also a lot of corporations which only care about their bottom line, and that often comes at the expense of employee well-being.

I could certainly see the hypothetical family you came up with existing in a world without minimum wage, but I could just as easily see the family looking something like this:

Dad is an unskilled laborer. He was never able to get very far in school (because he had to spend his childhood working to help support his lower-class family instead of studying), so he doesn't have many marketable skills. Dad works at a factory making $3.00 an hour and receives no benefits (because there are no unions to demand that employees get benefits). Dad has recently been experiencing respiratory issues due to the harsh chemicals he is subjected to every day at work (there are no unions to demand safe working conditions for employees). Unfortunately, the family cannot afford to go to the hospital because they have no insurance. Because of this, both the oldest and the middle sons have quit their schooling to take jobs at the factory. The two sons are young, and don't have children of their own to support. They are angry at their poor, unfortunate lot in life, and are planning to join a violent group of revolutionaries who want to overthrow the government that refuses to support common workers.

Now that was obviously an extreme example, but nonetheless, I see it as being completely feasible in a world without unions and minimum wage. The importance of minimum wage comes from the stability it brings lower-class workers. Also, I disagree with your notion that salary negotiation is a fundamental right. Nowhere in the Bill of Rights is salary negotiation mentioned. Nonetheless, the minimum wage does not prevent people from negotiating their salaries, it only sets the lowest number of dollars they can receive. Finally, because minimum wage and employee unions go hand-in-hand, I think it's worth mentioning that in many cases, unions have been the only thing that prevented employees from being replaced by machines.
#274 - rundas (05/02/2015) [-]
On your example: well that relies on a bunch of different factors. Also, you completely ignore the power of competition. Self-interest generally (with exceptions) encourages good treatment of workers. If one company offers no benefits, its competitor will. Assuming it's set in modern America, there'd be plenty of factories to go to, to negotiate a higher wage. And it's not beneficial for employers to have their workers in dangerous environments (assuming, of course, that OSHA is gone along with the minimum wage).

Setting a lower limit for pay IS interfering with negotiation. Getting hired is a negotiation. Let's say I want to get a job, but the economy's bad. The employer can't afford another minimum wage worker, but we both agree that if I were to work for $6.50/hour, I could be hired. He's happy to have an extra worker he can afford, and I'm happy to have a good starting job with a decent wage. But just as sex isn't consensual unless you ask Jesus, a mutually beneficial contract apparently isn't consensual unless government consents. So the government has voided my ability to negotiate my employment. Now, thanks to government, my would-be employer goes without an extra hand, and I go unemployed. No one's happy, except Sugar Daddy Fed, who'll be happy to know that none of his bitches be talkin' to clients without his say-so.
(btw, this was the primary argument against the minimum wage when FDR first introduced it).

Yes, your scenario might be feasible in this completely hypothetical world with no minimum wage. Except, that world isn't hypothetical. We didn't always have a minimum wage. The minimum wage was instituted in the Great Depression. You'll notice that there is no significant increase in quality of labor following the minimum wage laws. Why? Because quality of labor generally has little to do with policy, and a lot to do with economic prosperity.

Who else doesn't have a minimum wage? Singapore. Now, that's not exactly a haven of human rights, but it did pull off possibly the greatest economic miracle in history, literally going from the poorest country in Southeast Asia to the richest.

I'll admit I don't know too much on unions, and I really only know about the impact of unions from this one video, so the video could explain a lot better than me:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mPEdkN5UoU

tl;dw, pretty much just that there's a reverse cause and effect. The "progressive" laws came because of improvements in labor (as a result of greater prosperity) not the other way around.
Also, the idea that unions can stop the mechanization of low-skill labor is fallacious. Yes, they can sue here and there, and force the employers to take employees they neither want nor can afford, but things that go against the interests of employers and the markets can't last for long. The only way to actually prolong the inevitable robot takeover is by allowing employers to actually have an incentive to take on human workers.

OK, I've briefly touched on the economic and legal arguments against it. Now to the most obvious but possibly most controversial argument: at its core, it's bullshit. The economy is ORGANIC, made up of individual people making and selling products and services in ways that are beneficial to them. Obviously, some products and services are worth more than others, whether it be because of quality or demand, or whatever. To say that all labor is equal on the bottom rung is just bafflingly ludicrous. But since our politicians have decided to institute a Keynesian pseudo-economy that treat people as statistic models instead of individuals who respond to incentives, you now have to pay a garage sweeper at some dilapidated repair shop the same as someone who operates a machine that builds expensive cars valuable to the market. Why not have wages set naturally, by the market? That way, there's less crowding out of employment.
User avatar #308 - Deeticky (05/02/2015) [-]
It's interesting that you brought up Singapore. Singapore actually has one of the highest poverty rates compared to other high-income countries (1 in 4 Singaporeans live in poverty).

Yes, the minimum wage came about during the New Deal. The New Deal, along with the Great Society legislation has helped to create a safety net for Americans (Minimum Wage, Welfare, Medicare/Medicaid, etc.). With the safety net in place, a person can look for a job while unemployed without having to fear that their family will starve to death.

In fact, if you look at poverty rates over time in the U.S., you will see that they declined greatly after the New Deal and Great Society legislation came into effect, went back up during the Reagan Presidency, and declined again during the Clinton Era.

Next, I disagree with your notion that removing the minimum wage will necessarily fix unemployment. If you look at U.S. unemployment over time, you'll see that unemployment in the mid-late 1890's was greater than it was in the most recent recession.

Finally, I would recommend that you do some more research on unions when you get the chance. I have seen the John Stossel video before, and though there are some good points brought up, there's a lot of right-wing spinning/lying in there too (Don't worry, MSNBC does the same thing on the left).

You'll find that unions are far from perfect. They can cause problems. However, I see them as our best option at this point. If you look through history and in developing countries right now, you will see that a lack of employment/economic regulation leads to large levels of poverty and high income inequality. While these regulations are a pain in the ass, they also provide the stability that Americans need to live their lives with dignity.
#310 - rundas (05/02/2015) [-]
Yes, Singapore has a high poverty rate now. I guarantee you it was a lot higher in the early 1900s, and it's a lot lower than it would be if they didn't pull off the miracle they did. The point wasn't that Singapore is some utopia, it's that it's a successful economy, when it really shouldn't be. It doesn't have too many resources or anything. The only reason it's successful is because it liberalized its economy.

No one has proved sufficiently that the New Deal improved or harmed economic recovery. And it was the biggest spending regime in history. I think the fact that doing EVERYTHING the progressives recommend to "fix" the economy, even violating the Constitution and our judicial system to do it, is pretty damning. Also, I'm gonna need some statistics to show that the "safety net" has actually decreased "starvation" rates, if that was even a common trend before Fed came down on his white horse to save us.

From the graphs I see on poverty rate, it seems like poverty was already declining tremendously in the years before the War on Poverty. Also I don't see any statistics before 1959, so I really can't take your word that poverty dropped after the New Deal. If anything, it looks like the decline in poverty stagnated around 1965. Can't say much about the Reagan years, the difference isn't enough to say it's entirely his fault. Plus, Reagan did a lot of things I don't approve of, so I won't bother being his apologist. Anyway if I had to guess it probably came from the "shock" following the decline of the welfare state (which, if you recall, was reformed to its current state under Clinton, so I don't really see how that growth, even assuming it had nothing to do with the tech bubble, would be seen as a victory for big gubmint).

>1890s had higher unemployment
Yes, because there was the Panic of 1893, which, if you recall, went away on its own when government didn't try to "save" us. It's almost like there's some kind of natural cycle or something.

And I disagree 100% on regulations. First off, I don't think it's government that guarantees dignity, it's the free market. I don't want a government that's responsible for my dignity. It's been tried before, you could check out a few mass graves in Germany and Eastern Europe to figure out how that goes.

Also, regulations, without exception, drive out small businesses and help the big corporations that progressives claim to despise so. It takes 65 days to set up a lemonade stand if you follow the government's directives. It takes a million dollars to set up a taxi business in New York. Tell me again how this is necessary to guarantee the dignity of the employee.
Also like with disability laws, that ended up dropping employment among disabled Americans by 20%. The problem with all these laws is that they have good intentions. Good intentions, and no foresight whatsoever, so that the unforeseen consequences almost always hurt the people they're supposed to protect.

How about instead of these proactive laws that just destroy entrepreneurship and innovation, we rely on the fact that no business owner in America today could keep up a business model that hurts its employees or customers? Even if they did manage to coax their employees to keep working and their customers to come back, seems to me like they'd be sued out of their ass. You have to assume that people are rational actors and don't require a nanny state to live.

Again, gonna need proof that economic regulation causes reduction in poverty. Hell, I've seen the opposite. Look at any country in Asia. The less they planned their economies, the more business-friendly the became, the richer they became. That's the reason Asia isn't in Africa-tier poverty today.
User avatar #315 - Deeticky (05/04/2015) [-]
First off, I just want to make sure that I am not coming off like I support extremely heavy government involvement in all facets of life. Obviously I support progressive ideas, which you do not. That's ok. There is nothing wrong with civil disagreement. However, the comparisons you tried to make between the ideas I am advocating for and the ideas of Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia worry me. I would never advocate that the United States become fascist or communist. If I somehow came off that way, I apologize. If you need me to clarify anything, please ask questions.

Here's an article on how safety net policies have reduced poverty: www.pewtrusts.org/en/Research-and-Analysis/Blogs/Stateline/2014/10/28/How-the-Safety-Net-Cuts-Poverty-Rates

You say that regulations hurt small businesses "without exception." I would recommend that you be careful to not speak in absolutes like that, as all it takes is one example of a regulation helping a small business to disprove your claim. I think a good example are the recent rules put in place by the FCC (a regulatory body) which prevented Comcast from selectively raising or lowering the speed-of-access to certain websites. Had Comcast been allowed to do so, it would have hurt small businesses as they would not be able to afford the faster websites like big corporations would.

You mentioned how you believe that there are "good intentions" behind laws like the ADA. Perhaps then, you would agree that these laws could be further refined, to weed out the parts that hurt people and build upon the parts that help people? That's the scientific method, isn't it? Constant refinement.

Also, mass psychology shows us that people are not generally rational actors on the macro level. (Remember how people were foaming at the mouth with fear and hatred of Muslims after 9/11? A lot of the "national security" laws that came into place afterwards stomped all over the constitution, and people were generally ok with it. Where were the rational actors then?) I understand a lot of people's frustration with government regulations. I think that one of the problems is that a lot of regulatory bodies end up politicized beyond help. I much prefer meritocratic appointment in regulatory bodies. I think a good example of this is Japan's Ministry of Finance. After WW2, the strongly bureaucratic Ministry of Finance became significantly more meritocratic and helped Japan achieve its post-war "miracle economy."

Also, you mentioned lawsuits as a way for employees to make sure they receive proper treatment in the free-market. However, in order for a lawsuit to be viable, there has to be some sort of rule or law to be violated in the first place. If we had no regulation on employment standards, then there would be nothing for these corporations to violate, and therefore no grounds for a lawsuit.
#322 - rundas (05/08/2015) [-]
No, you didn't sound like you support communism or fascism. But as a student of history you can make general observations about the past. Generally, there is a clear trend with government: the better the intentions, the worse the outcomes. Because all actions, especially those based on moralistic ideals, and not facts, have unintended consequences. People never fundamentally change their behavior, they merely adjust to new circumstances. Any legislation that requires people to change their behavior will fail because people will just find loopholes to adjust around the new rules. Any change in behavior requires coercion; the greater the change, the greater the coercion required. In my mind, all coercion fundamentally erodes our natural liberties. When you want to make citizens "moral" where you believe they weren't previously, that requires the greatest amount of coercion, e.g. gulags, death camps, etc. My point is that no one had better intentions than the communists or fascists. In fact, they wanted most of the same stuff you do, e.g. income equality, a cooperative citizenry, etc.

The point is that government should not be in the business of "fixing" society. We live in a society where prosperity will naturally improve the lives of all, and where it doesn't, we have the freedom to organize and form social movements to correct any remaining evils. The problem of course comes when these movements don't ask the citizens to elect to change their ways, but demand the government force them to change. After all far more evils have been committed in the names of "social justice" on behalf of the government than any actual societal ills.

Yes, I did speak in absolutes, and the Comcast thing is a special case. I don't think you'll find a libertarian out there who opposes anti-monopoly legislation; we oppose crony capitalism more than anyone. I haven't looked too far into the net neutrality thing, but if my suspicions are right I have a feeling the FCC getting involved is like when the Russian people greeted the Nazis as liberators. I have a feeling it's going to bite us in the ass. Also if you think the fed wants nothing more than open internet, don't forget that they've long been pushing for an internet tax.

You talk of the scientific method? Well, when an experiment fails time and again, and is extremely costly to your lab and potentially dangerous to your scientists, most logical people would abandon the experiment.

Yes, there are certain exceptions to rational choice theory. That doesn't void the entire concept. Rather, even in crises, it gives us a model for how people will behave.
Also, if you think people aren't rational, what makes government rational? If people aren't smart enough to make decisions for themselves or with their own money, what makes government so much the wiser?

Also, yes, we need some laws in place to establish that bad behavior is bad (as if citizens can't already tell) but those should just be mandates to punish wrongdoers. Excessive regulation punishes everyone who wants to join the business for the potential of doing harm (and every potential customer as well).
User avatar #323 - Deeticky (05/09/2015) [-]
I have really enjoyed this conversation, my friend. I always enjoy getting to learn about the viewpoints that others hold. I am currently finishing senior paper for my political science degree, and so I need to leave our conversation (I think we both know that we could go on forever). Sadly, economics and the role of government in people's lives are topics that bring up many questions and no easy answers. Although we disagree, I appreciate the fact that you have obviously thought deeply about the subject. Not enough people dive deeply into things like this.
#324 - rundas (05/09/2015) [-]
Great talking to you. Good luck!
#316 - rundas (05/04/2015) [-]
Hm, this is a discussion I would like to continue, but I really need to study for finals tonight and don't need to get distracted. Send me another notification tomorrow and I'll respond to you.
User avatar #321 - Deeticky (05/08/2015) [-]
It's finals season for me too, man. I have really enjoyed the discussion!
#143 - I tried looking up the "don't chase edict" you menti…  [+] (1 new reply) 05/01/2015 on Muh social justice 0
User avatar #147 - pappanoodles (05/01/2015) [-]
no it's true , in my country the netherlands they say : je hoeft niet mee te werken aan je eigen arrestatie

or in english you don't have to cooperate with your own arrest. this means you are allowed to run away when not yet caught , if caught and you run after then it's resisting arrest
#119 - Try watching The Real Housewives and then tell me that white c…  [+] (1 new reply) 04/30/2015 on Institutionalized Racism +3
#208 - gangbangtime (04/30/2015) [-]
Every culture is stupid.
Ours is just the less stupid between the two.
#117 - I agree. It's nice to see someone else who understands that th… 04/30/2015 on Institutionalized Racism +7
#160 - I'm so sorry your friend had that awful experience. The way sh… 04/25/2015 on SJW Rage Comp +1
#178 - Where are you from? Maybe 420 i just a U.S.A. thing?…  [+] (1 new reply) 04/19/2015 on Popular Opinion Puffin... -1
User avatar #201 - valygomu (04/19/2015) [-]
Ok thanks,I understand now,I live in France so yeah does not make any sense here
#168 - Hmm.. Interesting. Most of the stoners that I've met are total…  [+] (4 new replies) 04/19/2015 on Popular Opinion Puffin... -1
User avatar #171 - valygomu (04/19/2015) [-]
Oh I met a bunch of faggot that talk about weed like a 12 years old girl speak about her favorite band,but we just don't have the "420".
What is this "420" like what does it mean,where does that came from ?
User avatar #178 - Deeticky (04/19/2015) [-]
Where are you from?

Maybe 420 i just a U.S.A. thing? 420 nowadyas stands for April 20th (4/20). I know that the name wouldn't make as much sense in other countries where the date is given in the day-month style (i.e. 20th April). But yeah, 420 as a term for pot smoking actually came form California. You can read about it here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/420_%28cannabis_culture%29
User avatar #201 - valygomu (04/19/2015) [-]
Ok thanks,I understand now,I live in France so yeah does not make any sense here
#175 - guu (04/19/2015) [-]
Something to do with the date.
Maybe try googling it?
Either way, weed isn't a culture, never will be.
Its just a bunch of stupid fucktwits.
#565 - I agree, there's more work to be done. I tend to support small… 04/14/2015 on bait quality: uchihalover +1
#39 - I really only chose that picture because it offered a good ang…  [+] (1 new reply) 04/14/2015 on Black Social Media Pt. 3 0
#40 - thismustbeseen (04/14/2015) [-]
Yeah, I'm starting to think it doesn't happen that often.
#32 - I think that both you and angelusprimus bring up some good poi…  [+] (3 new replies) 04/14/2015 on Black Social Media Pt. 3 0
#36 - thismustbeseen (04/14/2015) [-]
Makes sense. Your picture looks like a victory rally. There would be less chance a potential assassin was in a crowd of people who are cheering that he just won the election or some such.
User avatar #39 - Deeticky (04/14/2015) [-]
I really only chose that picture because it offered a good angle to see that there was no glass. Feel free to search for more pictures of the president speaking at non-victory rally events. You'll find that there's no bulletproof glass in the vast majority of them.
#40 - thismustbeseen (04/14/2015) [-]
Yeah, I'm starting to think it doesn't happen that often.
#561 - You're right, they don't listen to people, they listen to vote…  [+] (2 new replies) 04/14/2015 on bait quality: uchihalover 0
#564 - saltyfries (04/14/2015) [-]
the problem with the seniors though is that they're easily swayed, talk to any elder person and they're VERY old fashioned and old minded, they tend to be very ignorant of what's going on around them, it's not like young people aren't involved in politics either, the problem is that young politics are different from old people's, they clash, a little too hard times. Young people also tend to be more cynical and less trusting because they know how corrupt the government can be, and they feel that no matter what they do or what they try they feel ignored.

Consider the Following,

I think of the government like the WWE, when they do listen, they tend to misinterpret it. In the 2014 Royal Rumble, the people wanted wrestler Daniel Bryan to win the royal rumble, he wasn't even in it, then the people got mad because the WWE was going with Batista, so they cheered for anyone that wasn't Batista, including Roman Reigns (the guy who main evented this year's Wrestlemania), WWE thought that the people cheered for Reigns because he was cool, not because they didn't want Batista. So this year, they went with Roman Reigns, and again, gave Daniel Bryan (the wrestler people wanted) the snub. The results, were not only the same, but it's hurt WWE twice in a row now, and it hurt Roman Reign's credibility as a future great pro wrestler. WWE like the government is trying to cater to a group they want to control instead of being listened to, most of Pro Wrestling fans are like me, nerds, but WWE is trying to cater to kids, a small portion. The government is trying to cater to the seniors, like you mentioned, and it's a small portion of the population. The reason is pretty much the same thing, they can both be controlled because they don't know any better.

Seniors can be in politics all the want, doesn't mean they'll be listened to, how many times do I hear about Seniors not wanting social security being taken away, but yet benefits keep getting taken away anyway? The only time I can remember the people actually doing the right thing was rejecting a Wal-Mart wanting to be built in my hometown's downtown area, the fact that our Mayor even considered and liked the idea of Wal-Mart there hurt his credibility, yet he still holds office. The people are not being listened to, and when they are listened to, the government misinterprets it, or just flat out ignores it.

As for our economy, I agree, it has recovered, gas prices are down which imo affects how much people can spend, by saving $1 a gallon of gas that's an extra $10-$30 a fuel up people can save and spend on something else. People I feel have also figured out not to shop at Wal-Mart anymore because they don't support local economies. I feel however that we have a lot more to do however if the US is to re-establish any credibility as not only a stable super power, but not a laughing stock in terms of our pop and government towards the rest of the world.
#565 - Deeticky (04/14/2015) [-]
I agree, there's more work to be done. I tend to support small businesses as well. Yes, there are many examples of people not being listened to by politicians. There are also many examples of people being listened to by politicians. Social Security has been on the chopping block for a long time, because it costs a huge amount of money. Even though it has been reduced, the activism of senior citizens has helped to keep it from being eliminated completely. Gay marriage is another example. As the public has become more and more accepting of homosexual people, more and more states have legalized gay marriage. In fact, in my state, Minnesota, there was a ballot question, that if passed, would have defined marriage as only between one man and one woman. However, pro-LGBT activism groups fought really hard, and not only was that proposed amendment defeated, but gay marriage was actually legalized very shortly afterwards.
#38 - Actually, Japan has a very strong meritocratic bureaucracy (th… 04/14/2015 on good guy 0
#516 - Well, in a democracy, it's impossible to build a world that co…  [+] (4 new replies) 04/14/2015 on bait quality: uchihalover +2
User avatar #541 - saltyfries (04/14/2015) [-]
they don't listen to the people to begin with

you're points are great, but lets face it, our government and this upcoming election, are fucked.
User avatar #561 - Deeticky (04/14/2015) [-]
You're right, they don't listen to people, they listen to voters. Have you ever noticed how politicians seem to cater to senior citizens all the time? That's because senior citizens tend to not only have the highest voting rates, but because they are often retired, they also have a lot of time for political activism. If other groups were as active in politics as seniors are, they would be better listened to.

Also, I don't think the government is fucked. We're relatively stable right now. The economy has recovered decently, and international relations are starting to come back to pre-Bush era levels.
#564 - saltyfries (04/14/2015) [-]
the problem with the seniors though is that they're easily swayed, talk to any elder person and they're VERY old fashioned and old minded, they tend to be very ignorant of what's going on around them, it's not like young people aren't involved in politics either, the problem is that young politics are different from old people's, they clash, a little too hard times. Young people also tend to be more cynical and less trusting because they know how corrupt the government can be, and they feel that no matter what they do or what they try they feel ignored.

Consider the Following,

I think of the government like the WWE, when they do listen, they tend to misinterpret it. In the 2014 Royal Rumble, the people wanted wrestler Daniel Bryan to win the royal rumble, he wasn't even in it, then the people got mad because the WWE was going with Batista, so they cheered for anyone that wasn't Batista, including Roman Reigns (the guy who main evented this year's Wrestlemania), WWE thought that the people cheered for Reigns because he was cool, not because they didn't want Batista. So this year, they went with Roman Reigns, and again, gave Daniel Bryan (the wrestler people wanted) the snub. The results, were not only the same, but it's hurt WWE twice in a row now, and it hurt Roman Reign's credibility as a future great pro wrestler. WWE like the government is trying to cater to a group they want to control instead of being listened to, most of Pro Wrestling fans are like me, nerds, but WWE is trying to cater to kids, a small portion. The government is trying to cater to the seniors, like you mentioned, and it's a small portion of the population. The reason is pretty much the same thing, they can both be controlled because they don't know any better.

Seniors can be in politics all the want, doesn't mean they'll be listened to, how many times do I hear about Seniors not wanting social security being taken away, but yet benefits keep getting taken away anyway? The only time I can remember the people actually doing the right thing was rejecting a Wal-Mart wanting to be built in my hometown's downtown area, the fact that our Mayor even considered and liked the idea of Wal-Mart there hurt his credibility, yet he still holds office. The people are not being listened to, and when they are listened to, the government misinterprets it, or just flat out ignores it.

As for our economy, I agree, it has recovered, gas prices are down which imo affects how much people can spend, by saving $1 a gallon of gas that's an extra $10-$30 a fuel up people can save and spend on something else. People I feel have also figured out not to shop at Wal-Mart anymore because they don't support local economies. I feel however that we have a lot more to do however if the US is to re-establish any credibility as not only a stable super power, but not a laughing stock in terms of our pop and government towards the rest of the world.
#565 - Deeticky (04/14/2015) [-]
I agree, there's more work to be done. I tend to support small businesses as well. Yes, there are many examples of people not being listened to by politicians. There are also many examples of people being listened to by politicians. Social Security has been on the chopping block for a long time, because it costs a huge amount of money. Even though it has been reduced, the activism of senior citizens has helped to keep it from being eliminated completely. Gay marriage is another example. As the public has become more and more accepting of homosexual people, more and more states have legalized gay marriage. In fact, in my state, Minnesota, there was a ballot question, that if passed, would have defined marriage as only between one man and one woman. However, pro-LGBT activism groups fought really hard, and not only was that proposed amendment defeated, but gay marriage was actually legalized very shortly afterwards.
#509 - "Refusal to vote is not an act of protest, it's an act of…  [+] (6 new replies) 04/14/2015 on bait quality: uchihalover +1
User avatar #511 - saltyfries (04/14/2015) [-]
>doesn't matter what party, even independents

it doesn't matter who we vote for, we all get fucked in the end, that's the problem
User avatar #516 - Deeticky (04/14/2015) [-]
Well, in a democracy, it's impossible to build a world that conforms completely to what you want. Because people want different things, finding compromise is important. A presidential candidate has to pander to the entire American public. By default, that means there are going to be certain parts about each candidate that you like, and certain parts that you do not like. Maybe try looking into the more local elections (such as State House and State Senate)? Those candidates represent a smaller community, so maybe there will be some who come closer to your views.

Either way, if you choose not to vote, then politicians will have absolutely no reason to listen to you. After all, they don't need to take non-voters thoughts into consideration. That's one of the reason that young people/students are so often given the short-stick in politics. --They tend not to vote.
User avatar #541 - saltyfries (04/14/2015) [-]
they don't listen to the people to begin with

you're points are great, but lets face it, our government and this upcoming election, are fucked.
User avatar #561 - Deeticky (04/14/2015) [-]
You're right, they don't listen to people, they listen to voters. Have you ever noticed how politicians seem to cater to senior citizens all the time? That's because senior citizens tend to not only have the highest voting rates, but because they are often retired, they also have a lot of time for political activism. If other groups were as active in politics as seniors are, they would be better listened to.

Also, I don't think the government is fucked. We're relatively stable right now. The economy has recovered decently, and international relations are starting to come back to pre-Bush era levels.
#564 - saltyfries (04/14/2015) [-]
the problem with the seniors though is that they're easily swayed, talk to any elder person and they're VERY old fashioned and old minded, they tend to be very ignorant of what's going on around them, it's not like young people aren't involved in politics either, the problem is that young politics are different from old people's, they clash, a little too hard times. Young people also tend to be more cynical and less trusting because they know how corrupt the government can be, and they feel that no matter what they do or what they try they feel ignored.

Consider the Following,

I think of the government like the WWE, when they do listen, they tend to misinterpret it. In the 2014 Royal Rumble, the people wanted wrestler Daniel Bryan to win the royal rumble, he wasn't even in it, then the people got mad because the WWE was going with Batista, so they cheered for anyone that wasn't Batista, including Roman Reigns (the guy who main evented this year's Wrestlemania), WWE thought that the people cheered for Reigns because he was cool, not because they didn't want Batista. So this year, they went with Roman Reigns, and again, gave Daniel Bryan (the wrestler people wanted) the snub. The results, were not only the same, but it's hurt WWE twice in a row now, and it hurt Roman Reign's credibility as a future great pro wrestler. WWE like the government is trying to cater to a group they want to control instead of being listened to, most of Pro Wrestling fans are like me, nerds, but WWE is trying to cater to kids, a small portion. The government is trying to cater to the seniors, like you mentioned, and it's a small portion of the population. The reason is pretty much the same thing, they can both be controlled because they don't know any better.

Seniors can be in politics all the want, doesn't mean they'll be listened to, how many times do I hear about Seniors not wanting social security being taken away, but yet benefits keep getting taken away anyway? The only time I can remember the people actually doing the right thing was rejecting a Wal-Mart wanting to be built in my hometown's downtown area, the fact that our Mayor even considered and liked the idea of Wal-Mart there hurt his credibility, yet he still holds office. The people are not being listened to, and when they are listened to, the government misinterprets it, or just flat out ignores it.

As for our economy, I agree, it has recovered, gas prices are down which imo affects how much people can spend, by saving $1 a gallon of gas that's an extra $10-$30 a fuel up people can save and spend on something else. People I feel have also figured out not to shop at Wal-Mart anymore because they don't support local economies. I feel however that we have a lot more to do however if the US is to re-establish any credibility as not only a stable super power, but not a laughing stock in terms of our pop and government towards the rest of the world.
#565 - Deeticky (04/14/2015) [-]
I agree, there's more work to be done. I tend to support small businesses as well. Yes, there are many examples of people not being listened to by politicians. There are also many examples of people being listened to by politicians. Social Security has been on the chopping block for a long time, because it costs a huge amount of money. Even though it has been reduced, the activism of senior citizens has helped to keep it from being eliminated completely. Gay marriage is another example. As the public has become more and more accepting of homosexual people, more and more states have legalized gay marriage. In fact, in my state, Minnesota, there was a ballot question, that if passed, would have defined marriage as only between one man and one woman. However, pro-LGBT activism groups fought really hard, and not only was that proposed amendment defeated, but gay marriage was actually legalized very shortly afterwards.
#205 - Good to hear. I wish you luck. 04/14/2015 on Judgmental cunt 0
#191 - I'm honestly not sure why fat-shaming has become so popular on…  [+] (2 new replies) 04/13/2015 on Judgmental cunt 0
User avatar #193 - laces (04/14/2015) [-]
I know for a fact my eating habits have been controlled by my own ways to cope with reality. I've found methods in less healthy things, sadly, smoking mainly. I see a therapist often for my issues, and I do know my issues reach deep down. And I am getting better for every minute, it just takes time. Just like losing weight does.
User avatar #205 - Deeticky (04/14/2015) [-]
Good to hear. I wish you luck.
#125 - I think that's exactly the point though, people often notice t…  [+] (2 new replies) 04/08/2015 on can't trust book covers man 0
#127 - miasimon (04/08/2015) [-]
It probably would help their case if there was something to tell you what you were looking at. Something along the lines of "Spot the terrorist" would have helped.


I understand the point, but only after being told I was wrong, because I wondered
"What the fuck is a giant biker doing in the middle of a group of schoolboys?"
#131 - ExorArgus (04/08/2015) [-]
Going to school you fucking bigot JESUS. all of the sarcasm
#189 - Are you feeling ok? I can't really tell because I can't hear y… 04/08/2015 on Maybe they're coming around... 0
#31 - God, this site has become **** ...I miss the days when F…  [+] (4 new replies) 04/07/2015 on NOW She's Perfect 0
#50 - anon (04/07/2015) [-]
the site never really changed until about a year ago when it started becoming completely obsessed with being a bunch of self righteous retards who repost a bunch of crap about feminists but other than that literally nothing has changed
#78 - xxmemosxx (04/07/2015) [-]
#43 - theruinedsage (04/07/2015) [-]
Welcome to /pol2.0/
#42 - anon (04/07/2015) [-]
I think you might have made a simple mistake, FunnyJunk was never tumblr.
#30 - Comment deleted 04/07/2015 on NOW She's Perfect 0
#187 - Again, you're making a broad, sweeping generalization ("f…  [+] (2 new replies) 04/07/2015 on Maybe they're coming around... 0
User avatar #188 - eight (04/07/2015) [-]
"Again, you're making a broad, sweeping generalization ("from the second a feminist opens their mouth" insinuating that all feminists are the same)."

I demonstrated why this is the case. I'll briefly restate it, feminism is entirely unnecessary as a movement. If this is indeed the case, then anyone that claims to be a feminist, by association falls into the same problem, because as it being unnecessary, they are joining the movement for a specific reason.

"You said you don't care, which worries me, since it says to me that you're not open to other ideas. I think that's a little dangerous. "

I said I do not care about being blunt. That has nothing to do with being open or closed to other ideas, that has to do with not caring about sugar coating the truth to avoid hurting peoples feelings. In other words, I do not care if I offend anyone, because it must be said even at the expense of looking like an asshole. I can live with that, because these issues are far more important than anyone's hurt ego. They'll get over it.
Way to take that out of context and write your own narrative.

"Anyway, very few feminists believe that women should be given more rights than men."

Thus rendering the feminism movement pointless. There's no need to favor feminism over the general equal rights movement. The latter accomplishes more anyway. One popular movement are the Humanists that do this very thing.

"ust because some of the loudest feminists on the internet say that, doesn't mean it's the majority opinion. Just because they are choosing to fight for equal rights for women, does not mean that they do not believe in equal rights for all people."

Again, singling out feminism is unnecessary when the same thing can be accomplished elsewhere.

"All equal rights movements in the past focus on one specific group (Blacks had/have their movement, Latinos had/have theirs, Asians had/have theirs, women have/had theirs, etc.) "

I suspected this, but now it's clear you did not read my comment and or did not comprehend it very well. I am talking about the present. I specifically pointed out that the feminism movement is no longer necessary and hasn't been needed for decades, thus implying that there once was a time where it was necessary, but we've progressed to an acceptable, albeit not perfect point in equal rights. There's room for improvement, but it's not dire and it hasn't been for some time. If things were never to progress from this point, women would still get on just fine with very little complaint. They already do.

"People have a hard time focusing on equal rights for the entire human population, so they focus on one group at a time, with the eventual goal of equal rights for all. "

It's really not that difficult when you consider people equally and not separate by cultural, racial or ethnic differences. When you treat them as the human beings that they are, it''s a hell of a lot more easy.

As for what the current feminism movement: You're a fool if you claim it hasn't been hijacked by the extremists. You acknowledge that it's the loudest of the feminists that get attention, well that's really all that matters, isn't it? They are the ones representing the movement in the same way that terrorists are the ones representing Islam. Obviously not every single "feminist" or every single "Muslim" is an extremist. How naive can you be to assume that anybody means that in the literal sense?

Regardless, if the loudest is what's representing the movement, then the movement should be criticized by that representation. There's clearly something wrong with the feminism movement in the same way there is something wrong with Islam. Until it's corrected, if ever, anybody who disagrees with that representation should disown and condemn it if they can't manage to speak louder than the extremists. It's that simple, especially when there are far more efficient alternatives, like Humanism.

User avatar #189 - Deeticky (04/08/2015) [-]
Are you feeling ok? I can't really tell because I can't hear your tone or see your body language, but I sensed more hostility from you in this comment than I had in your previous comments (accusing me of not reading your comment, calling me a "fool", calling me "naive", etc). I am not trying to accuse you of anything, I'm just wondering how you're feeling. You seem like an intelligent person, and I am hoping that we can have a civil discussion without any ill-will, and perhaps even learn from each other.

To your first point, I have not seen you provide any evidence that feminism is now "unnecessary" as a movement. In fact, in many countries, women's rights are abysmal. Though we have not specified it, I will assume that we are talking about feminism specifically in the USA. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Though there are many reasons why I view the feminism movement as still having merit/value, I will list just a few here.

1: Women's access to safe abortions and birth-control medication is being dismantled in many states where the Christian Right has political control.
2: "slut-shaming." While I personally do not believe that overt sexual promiscuity is appropriate, women are by and large far more likely to be punished by society for promiscuity than men are. Furthermore, a decent number of police departments are still failing to properly investigate rape cases, the victims of which are far more likely to be women than men.
3: Wage inequality (i.e. women not receiving equal pay for equal work).

To your second point, it looks like I misunderstood what you were trying to say when you said "I don't care." I apologize for that. I promise you that I was not trying to create my own narrative. Thank you for clarifying what you had meant.

To your third and fourth points, I like that you brought up humanism. I think that it is a wonderful movement. I do not think that feminism and humanism are mutually exclusive. I consider myself a feminist as well as a secular humanist. Feminism chooses simply to focus on women's issues. I think that having a focus is very important when it comes to public policy. After all, a legislator cannot simply introduce a bill that says "everybody is equal" and then call it a night. Instead, laws have to generally address specific issues one by one. In addition, there are some issues that affect men and women in different ways (abortion and birth control are a good example of this). Because of that fact, policies have to address an issue's effect on women separately from its effect on men, which means that a truly "equal" policy may not be an appropriate response.

To your fifth point, I promise you that I did read your comment (multiple times). It is very possible that I misread your comment. It's very easy to misunderstand people on the internet (again, I have no tone or body language to help me). That's why it's a good thing that you can reply and clarify. Also, you say the point we're at now in equal rights is "acceptable, albeit not perfect." The problem is that it's impossible for any one person to truly define what an "acceptable" level of equal rights is. You say that women get along fine with very little complaint, yet the feminism movement has a large number of adherents, so I would say that they actually are complaining quite a bit.

To your sixth point, yes, if everybody treated everybody else fairly, the world would be a better place. Unfortunately, that's not the case. One of the biggest barriers in achieving this is the fact that "fair" means different things to different people.

To your seventh and eighth points, I disagree. I do not think movements are defined by their loudest members. If that were the case, then Muslims would be defined by ISIS, feminists would be defined by man-haters, Christians would be defined by the Westboro Baptist Church, etc. If feminism has indeed been hijacked, then there's absolutely no reason for the "good" feminists to not fight for their title back.

items

Total unique items point value: 1870 / Total items point value: 2370
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#8 - evilhomer ONLINE (06/21/2014) [-]
User avatar #7 - atomicman (01/17/2014) [-]
If only we got to meet each other in person. I'm sure we'd be become great friends.
#4 - traffy (01/02/2014) [-]
**traffy rolls 65**
**traffy rolls 65**
User avatar #1 - CannonFodder (10/26/2012) [-]
I hadn't been on FJ for ~ 1.5 years so I don't know what has/hasn't been done. Just couldn't be ****** studying so drew that instead. Didn't mean to annoy peeps but cheers for the feedback man
User avatar #5 to #1 - traffy (01/02/2014) [-]
you should shut the **** up
User avatar #6 to #5 - CannonFodder (01/04/2014) [-]
Lol care
 Friends (0)