Hahaha is this site for adults? They blurred a cartoon image at the top of the article? Some of the audience just can't handle looking at a maga hat on a caterpillar or a sonnenrad, which, despite its ancient and varied use, necessarily means whatever the 0.005% of the population which is neo-Nazi says it means (at least according to the 5% of insane leftists who spend all of their time thinking about that 0.005% and asserting that everyone who disagrees with them is a member of this set, which, despite being so incoherent that one might naturally assume that they're attempting deception, it very well may be the case that these insane, paranoid loonies actually believe this stuff, probably because they have to consciously fight against their own natural tendencies to have similar ideas and can't imagine that the rest of us don't).
lots of misinformation in this, some parts are bizzare
Dude, you 𝑫𝑶 𝑵𝑶𝑻 want a public bank. This private company stuff is nothing when compared to giving the state a monopoly over your ability to bank. It seems like you have a tendency to think the government is a 𝑾𝑬, in the sense that you are part of the group that will get the regulations you would like passed. The decision mechanism that our government uses is not 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘴𝘶𝘴, nor will the outcome of that decision mechanism necessarily reflect your preferences in any way. In fact, the outcome the mechanism generates is just as likely to reflect the preference of your opposition, and creating a scenario where that opposition has absolute authority over the transfer and management of money is extremely dangerous.
In general, I think there is a tendency for people to treat decisions made by way of a majoritarian decision mechanism as not only legitimate, but actually desirable, at least in principle, failing to recognize that majoritarianism was chosen as the least of all possible evils which could function as a decision mechanism for government. First, it permits a functioning form of self-government, in contrast with a mechanism like consensus, through which it would be nearly impossible to make changes to the status quo, at least when employed by any sizable group of people. Second, it is the only mechanism of self-government which doesn't prefer one outcome over another, 𝘢 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘰𝘳𝘪, e.g., consensus biases strongly towards the status quo. Similarly, a two-thirds requirement, employed in the U.S. Constitution in some areas, such as the amendment process, also creates a bias for the existing regulatory scheme, for the purpose of elevating, above a right to pass law using a democratic process, two other values, at least:
1. The purpose of much of the Constitution (and "the great object to which [the founders'] inquiries [were] directed", 𝘚𝘦𝘦 J. Madison, 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘍𝘦𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘵, No. 10), including federalism, the allocation and limitation of power, the structure of the federal government, and the Bill of Rights, is to protect individual rights from the democratic process, because "democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives, as they have been violent in their deaths" (𝘚𝘦𝘦 𝘐𝘥.). Were the Constitution able to be changed through a democratic decision mechanism, then it could not serve to protect the citizens from such mechanisms.
2. The uncertainty of the effects of a proposed law makes it riskier than the status quo, the latter of which, by definition, we are assured of the outcome of its adoption. Requiring greater support for proposed changes serves to moderate the nature of those change, because supporters for change will have to appeal to more people, who may be more wary of such change, and they will need to adopt a more moderate position to gain their support.
Nonetheless, and as stated by Madison in Federalist, No. 10 (and many others throughout history), un-checked democracy is extremely dangerous, and, as stated above, inevitably results in tyranny and oppression of the rights of a minority. While our Constitution makes it manageable, its protections have been weakened more and more over the years, primarily though the weakening of federalism by the 16th Amendment (crowing out state taxation of income), expansion of the Commerce Clause during the New Deal era (𝘚𝘦𝘦 e.g. 𝘞𝘪𝘤𝘬𝘢𝘳𝘥 𝘷. 𝘍𝘪𝘭𝘣𝘶𝘳𝘯, 317 U.S. 111 (1942)), and the court's finding that conditioning of block-grants of funds back to states on the states' conforming to a regulatory scheme prescribed the the federal government did not constitute usurpation of powers allocated to the states for the purposes of the 10th Amendment (𝘚𝘦𝘦 e.g. 𝘚𝘰𝘶𝘵𝘩 𝘋𝘢𝘬𝘰𝘵𝘢 𝘷. 𝘋𝘰𝘭𝘦, 483 U.S. 203 (1987)).
In contrast to majoritarianism, market decisions result in varied, numerous, and tailored outcomes. For example, instead of voting on an ice-cream flavor, companies will develop numerous flavors through innovation, and each of us can decide for himself which flavor he prefers. A majoritarian decision results in a winner and loser, and is inherently a zero-sum game. Over time, such outcomes result in political strife and conflict, potentially violent. Hence, to the degree possible, we'd prefer to have market outcomes (not to be confused with government collusion or subsidy with private firms) and limit majoritarianism to when it is absolutely necessary (i.e., market failures where the marginal cost of the failure exceeds the marginal cost imposed by the solution).
Arbitrarily assigning government a monopoly on banking, and subjecting something of such fundamental importance to the dangers of democracy (especially our current, heavily eroded federalism, from which the Democrats seem to have had as their goal the desire to remove as many protections as possible) seems like a bad idea.
Tim, you should assume that, when a politician acts (or speaks, votes, or supports some policy), and the effects thereof fall within a reasonably predictable range of potential outcomes, then they undertook that act intending those effects. This is more commonly discussed in the context of proposing a bill or voting for a law, where the politician names the bill, or otherwise discuss its purpose, that name or stated purpose omits, or is inconsistent with, some, commonly economic, predictable effects. A common example might be something like a price ceiling, e.g. rent control such that the maximum allowable rents fall below what would otherwise be the market price, where the politician claims that the law will merely reduce rents for residents. However, even the most basic understanding of economics would suggest that there will be other, significant effects, ceteris paribus, the costs of which may outweigh any proposed benefits, assuming those benefits are realized at all. For example, a shortage of rental properties will almost certainly occur, because quantity-demanded at the new rent prices will be significantly higher than the equilibrium value which would result in a competitive rental market (this will hold to the degree to which demand is elastic—i.e., if a bizarre scenario arose where demand was completely inelastic in the 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘳𝘵-𝘳𝘶𝘯 ¹, meaning that quantity-demanded is constant for all prices, then rent-control, whether a price ceiling or price floor, would have no effect on quantity-demanded). As time passed into the 𝘮𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘶𝘮-𝘳𝘶𝘯 , however, market forces would begin to react to the regulation in a way that will mitigate the shortage (eliminating it in the 𝘭𝘰𝘯𝘨-𝘳𝘶𝘯 ) and bring average cost in-line with the new rents. The result of the latter will be a decrease in quality (ceteris paribus , e.g. were some technological improvement to reduce input-costs, the effect on quality would be reduced, because part of the costs are being reduced by the technological improvement, thus the degree to which quality will fall will be correspondingly less; also, were tastes to change, such that the location under rent-control is otherwise less desirable to many consumers, the drop in quality would be lessened)².
It is reasonable to assume politicians are aware of likely economic effects (or effects which might be predicted in other social sciences, although other social sciences are far less predictive and far less successful at explaining large-scale human behavior), because politicians have access to experts in many fields, financial resources, and teams of staffers to assist them. Hence, when I'm able to make a prediction about the risks and likely effects of the 𝘊𝘖𝘝𝘐𝘋 shutdown on developing nations, which rely heavily on trade with, and assistance from, wealthy Western nations, in just a few minutes when first hearing about the mere proposal of a temporary lockdown to slow the spread, then every politician will have been aware of at least as much. Hence, when deciding to shut down their respective states, politicians in those states also expected all of these other results (and there are many more such easily-predictable harms that have or will likely result domestically). Another example is the "Patriot Act", the name of which tells us very little about the expected effects, or, similarly, "The Affordable Care Act", which, ironically, made health insurance substantially more expensive for young, healthy people, and transferred that money to older, less healthy people. In the US, one of the variables most strongly associated with wealth is age, such that as a person ages from the beginning of his career to the end of his career, he, in the vast majority of cases, has become far wealthier as a result of savings and increased income; yet, "The Affordable Care Act" transferred money from poor, young people, to these older, much wealthier people, and this was part of the intended effect, because not only was it predictable—it was effectively the design itself.
It has become the norm for politicians to shirk responsibility by pretending they voted for laws with a completely different intent than what ended up resulting, or then passing off granular control over the regulation to unelected administrative agencies, which, to go along with their inefficiencies, have bizarre incentives which are inconsistent with the interests of the citizens, creating a high risk for corruption to arise, which is only magnified by the fact that these people don't have fixed terms and may stay in these positions for a lifetime.
Awesome video, really shows you how long this stuff has been going on
It is really upsetting that most people probably listen to this guy and think he's expressing himself genuinely, merely conveying to the audience the difficult emotional experiences he's had. I find it hard to believe that this is the first time he's heard a president say anything in front of that memorial that wasn't related to reverence of the CIA agents listed on it. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if it is a common location to give speeches, surely having a causal relationship with his choice to speak there.
Unfortunately, I imagine his handlers were well-aware that such an intro would be useful for framing the conversation and establishing a desirable emotional disposition in relation to the speaker, perhaps gathering sentiment, flattering the audience as having an appropriate moral outlook for agreeing with such a reverent character, who is so morally righteous that he couldn't help but make the negative association, or perhaps he is attempting to establish trust by making the audience feel as though he has exposed his emotional reactions and tendency towards moral considerations, appearing as though he was willing to confide in the audience and make himself vulnerable.
Having set the stage, he apparently felt that the audience would be ready to sympathize with claims that the president's thinking for himself instead of blindly following suggestion from an unelected member of the deep state was an indicator that he wasn't fit for the job. Further, he expects us to now agree that these people who have spent an entire career in deep state positions, unelected, and, aside from Trump, indifferent to the political leanings of the president at the time, are who should be effectively making the decisions, instead of the elected official. He obscures the reality that the purpose of these experts, here, is to provide information to the president, not determine policy (which is the function of the elected official, entirely).
Lol, I wondered what it would take for these drones to refer to rioters as terrorists. Initially, I thought it might be severity of behavior, but it turns out, burning down buildings and kicking people in the head while knocked out on the street was insufficient, while throwing a heavy object at a group of armed men with helmets and body armor on qualified. I do wonder why this particular attack on a cop has him so worked up, and why the countless number of far more violent attacks during the nation-wide riots that have plagued the nation throughout 2020 didn't inspire a similar reaction. Hmm, so it doesn't have anything to do with it being a cop, nor does it have anything to do with the severity of the attack. I guess we've worked things down to the race of the attacker, in which case, for some reason, he holds whites to a higher standard than the non-white, but there were plenty of violent attacks on cops from whites all year, so I guess it is the presumed political persuasion of the attacker. Hence, I guess, without context, this guy wouldn't be able to watch a video or a person with unknown political persuasion attacking a cop and determine whether that person was a terrorist and merited arrest. Wow, what an asshole.
Notwithstanding NPC's complete lack of objectivity or apparent ability to reason, he is, coincidentally, probably right about the need for arrest, based what you see in the video—attacking cops is not ok, absent extraordinary circumstances (and being drunk while black is not one of those, just in case NPC is curious). Obviously, the criminal charge will involve a 𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘢, which will come down to things like the weight of the object, the degree to which his state of mind allowed for purpose, and whether he knew or should have known a cop was likely to be hit by the object, to determine what charge is appropriate and whether he can be convicted. The cop may have a civil claim for assault/battery as well, where the severity of injury will determine actual damages, but, since this would likely be an intentional tort, there might be presumed and punitive damages as well.
Nice to hear someone whose capable of not liking the riot, but, at the same time, not pretending like this was an incredibly destructive legitimate attempt to conquer the United States, such that anyone could plausibly believe that a group of unarmed rednecks, who, for the most part, were aimlessly walking about and sight-seeing, posed a conceivable threat of, as a result of occupying the building, taking control of the U.S. government and imposing their authority and legal order on the rest of the country, who, given the hopelessness of the situation, would have no choice but to submit to the new government.
We build Freedom Of Speech Software. We champion free speech, individual liberty and the free flow of information online. All are welcome.