BF2S Forums Presidential Election 2016

apparently we should abolish law and democratic process, the rules and norms that our civil society are predicated upon, because it's all a pretence anyway!!!

Dilbert_X wrote:

Now that Trump is President, why has he not ensured Clinton was prosecuted for all the heinous crimes she committed?

Well it was one of his most repeated and clear election 'promises'.
He's not delivered on any of the others so why should that one be any different.

I am a fan of laws that are simple and universally enforceable. When you criminalize everything, you turn everyone into scofflaws and the entire rule of, and respect for, law is undermined.

uziq wrote:

Shahter wrote:

none of this matters, we live in a world where anything goes, depending on the profits gained. perjury? - sure. influencing an election? - are you kidding, usa is the word's money bag, everybody and his mother in law would try to influence those elections - and they do.

it's called "capitalism".

A certain 10 percent will ensure its employment anywhere; 20 percent certain will produce eagerness; 50 percent, positive audacity; 100 percent will make it ready to trample on all human laws; 300 percent, and there is not a crime at which it will scruple, nor a risk it will not run, even to the chance of its owner being hanged.

right, it's called capitalism. because cronyism and corruption never affected the soviet union, did it?

the problem with capitalism, as opposed to what was there in soviet union, is that under capitalism cronyism and corruption are not even recognized by the system as something negative. when you put capital and interests of its owners on top of your hierarchy of values and base your social structure on economic classes, all other stuff goes out the window. in the resulting system, unscrupulous mofos are more effective as capitalists and corrupt bastards are more effective as politicians - not because they are "evil", but because they are less constrained by human notions and values you and i would probably agree were positive and just and deserving for those possessing them of authority, wealth and power.

so, as i said, under capitalism shit rises to the top for a reason. and that reason is not in the nature of the shit - which, as you pointed out, is always present - it's in the nature of the system itself.

there is a simple way to keep capitalism's worst excesses out of the democratic system, and that is through laws and regulations. just because america's funding laws are minatory and ineffective, doesn't mean it has to be so. not every democracy in the world is bought and sought by lobbyists, superPACs, and political consultants. but apparently introducing more laws or tightening regulations is a joke that only 'undermines respect for law'.

funny how you intellectual giants are all basically craving a big daddy figure to benignly tell you what to do. speak in clear terms, daddy! i want 10 household rules i can follow! that will make me love and respect you, big daddy!

nice rhetoric, almost like it’s out of a karl marx ‘make your own quote’ exercise book. but no, we aren’t examining capitalism in the 1780s or even the 1880s anymore. it’s really not the case that every law is an alibi or justification for the ruling class. there have been plenty of reforms and redistributions of power in the intervening century. lots of democratic societies work fairly and with laws that benefit everyone.

i’m all for discussing hobbes and leviathan, if you’re for such a fundamental critique of ordered society. or we can talk about foucault and theories of liberal order, if you like; how every democratic order is based on the unspoken threat of violence and power. all very interesting but also somewhat besides the ordinary point that fair laws and an independent judiciary can exist.

again, you think it's somehow sophisticated or 'smart' to point out that democracies are founded on violence, or were only conceded by the rich and powerful to the subservient out of the most reluctant necessity, or are somehow 'tainted' by ignoble beginnings. i don't think anyone is under any illusions about the origins and history of western democracies: i mean, for the last century the world's 'free nations' have been rapidly decolonising;  colonial critiques (and postcolonial theory) have been thrown at us incessantly for the last 50 years, shaping our culture and sense of history; no one can possibly doubt that the supposed 'greatness' of our nations comes from a whole lot of power and exploitation. we all know the story about king john begrudgingly ceding power to his rebellious barons, that being the ignoble beginnings of the magna carta rather than some noble granting of power; we all know that those barons had no intentions of letting the weak ever have power. but it's 2018 and this isn't a medieval history lesson, so please stop presenting these ideas about 'the nature of democracy' as some sort of revelation. you almost make out that we still live in an era when whig-aristocratic landowners are passing laws exclusively to serve their own narrow class interests, whilst the common folk rot on their country estates.

i'd rather live in a system that still at least tries to maintain a common civic culture, that values unexciting insipidities like law and order, than live in some failed second-world country like russia where everyone's spirit has been so crushed by a century of corruption and incompetence that they can't believe in anything. what you pass off as 'wisdom' is in fact incredibly depressing to see, because you basically don't believe in anything. we didn't all have to suffer under the greyscale of the USSR so please spare us your depressing 'drunk at the bar''-level philosophy. the world already has a Hrabal and he's much better at it than you.

you remind me of this dumb woman in the middle of this clip from this dumb film.

Last edited by uziq (2018-12-16 02:09:29)

Shahter wrote:

uziq wrote:

nice rhetoric, almost like it’s out of a karl marx ‘make your own quote’ exercise book. but no, we aren’t examining capitalism in the 1780s or even the 1880s anymore. it’s really not the case that every law is an alibi or justification for the ruling class. there have been plenty of reforms and redistributions of power in the intervening century. lots of democratic societies work fairly and with laws that benefit everyone.

[wall of text cut]

heard all of that before too. one thing i noticed, you know, is that people who keep defending so called "enlightened west", with its gospels of "liberal democracy" and "non-zero sum game", are never capable of actually explaining, how in particular current state of society which is still based on economic classes, is different from that marx was describing in his work. i mean, it's all still in place - private property on means of production, private appropriation of collective labor's results based on those property rights, exploitation, inflation, debt accumulation, imperialist conflicts - it's all still there... but, according to the likes of you, also somehow very different.

care to explain?

What has lifted more people out of poverty in the past few hundred years than capitalism? Was it socialism? The answer is no. Trade, while not as free as it should be, has allowed more people access to affordable goods and services than could ever be attained under closed systems. You lament things like private property, but they are the primary driver behind this growth. If people can not enjoy the fruits of their labor they will not invest in them. If I knew that the government could seize my home tomorrow I would not invest in it today. I would be a fool to do so. This is why your society failed. There was no incentive for anyone to buy in and improve it because they had no ownership stake. Everything was dictated from on high by technocrats and individuals were completely helpless to improve their lot or exert any sort of control.

Marx was an idiot. Everyone that has ever followed his ideas has become more miserable, not less. It's a losers philosophy. All it does is allow for people to blame external forces for their lot in life while taking zero ownership. "I'm not making as much money as I feel I should be, I must be exploited in some way". Fuck off. Even total idiots can become comfortably wealthy in this system as long as they work their ass off and have the courage to go out on their own.

I read a good quillette blog post yesterday: https://quillette.com/2018/12/11/sad-radicals/

Jay wrote:

The underlying problem as I see it has been the public assault on bourgeoisie values over the past century. They were mocked by the artistic and intellectual classes because those types felt constrained within them. But what were they? Basic unspoken rules that allowed people to live and work together in close proximity while maintaining a level of civility. At heart, it allowed a measure of trust to form between people of a common culture who could depend on one another to not fuck each other over at every opportunity. We no longer have this. When I walk down the street I fully expect people to cut lines, act like assholes, puke in the streets, walk into each other while staring at phone screens, etc. Instead of everyone holding each other accountable for poor behavior we hear cries of "don't judge me!" instead. Bourgeoisie values are what allow the Scandinavian countries to flourish with hefty welfare states. They judge the shit out of each other, or did until recently. Now it's being replaced with post-modern moral equivalency and the systems are being exploited.

That's literally capitalism's fault. As I mentioned last month, I was reading the book Conservatives Against Capitalism. Russel Kirk, Novak, and Irving Kristol all pointed out in the 60's that capitalism as was being practiced in the modern west was degrading society and undermining protestant and bourgeoisie values.

You really can't cheer lead for capitalism and libertarianism but also complain about the undermining of bourgeoisie values. "Don't judge me!"+"leave me alone" is kinda what libertarianism is all about isn't it? The neocons whose idea you parroted saw libertarianism as part of the problem.

Jay wrote:

]The underlying problem as I see it has been the public assault on bourgeoisie values over the past century. They were mocked by the artistic and intellectual classes because those types felt constrained within them. But what were they? Basic unspoken rules that allowed people to live and work together in close proximity while maintaining a level of civility. At heart, it allowed a measure of trust to form between people of a common culture who could depend on one another to not fuck each other over at every opportunity. We no longer have this. When I walk down the street I fully expect people to cut lines, act like assholes, puke in the streets, walk into each other while staring at phone screens, etc. Instead of everyone holding each other accountable for poor behavior we hear cries of "don't judge me!" instead. Bourgeoisie values are what allow the Scandinavian countries to flourish with hefty welfare states. They judge the shit out of each other, or did until recently. Now it's being replaced with post-modern moral equivalency and the systems are being exploited.

I say all this because most of the laws written today are basically "don't be an asshole laws" and they shouldn't even be necessary. They're also almost completely unenforceable.

People can hold each other accountable in small villages, the idea of running a city on community disapproval of poor behaviour is absurd.
That said, the Japanese manage it with good upbringing, the concept of community and thoroughly enforced laws. But they have a fairly homogeneous culture and a decent educational system, which teaches civics, not 'me first!'. The racial mishmash, egotism and absence of community you have will only work with thorough law enforcement.
I don't see why the laws you're complaining about are 'unenforceable', most likely its a soundbite you've heard somewhere.

No one knows how many laws there are in the United States.  Apparently, no one can count that high.

Don't be absurd. Anyway, if your theory that laws just consist of "don't be an asshole" then don't be an asshole and you won't fall foul of the law however many specific laws there are.

What I can't count is the number of times we've had this 'there should be no laws, the free market will sort it all out' discussion.

As for your 'its ok to ignore asinine laws' argument:

In my street we have:

- One resident who thinks its asinine that he should have to wear clothes on his property - if a child looks into his garden and sees a morbidly obese 65yr old doing gardening while naked then its the childs fault for invading his privacy.

- One resident who thinks its asinine that he can't do band practice until 4am

- One resident who thinks its asinine that he can't let his dog bark 24/7

- One resident who thinks its OK to poison barking dogs, he's killed at least two so far

- Three residents who thought it was asinine they couldn't deal drugs from their homes

- One resident who thinks its asinine not to be allowed to do 100kmh in a 50kmh zone

- One resident who thought it was asinine that he couldn't threaten to shoot people who trim trees on their own property

- One resident who thinks its asinine that he can't set up a video camera to record his neighbours kids in their swimming pool

- One resident who thinks its asinine that he needs council approval for building work on his property

The solution here is clearly to remove all the asinine laws and let people sort it out amongst themselves, because its too many laws that are the problem, people just can't keep track of them.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2018-12-16 15:10:26)

The free market will handle it.

SuperJail Warden wrote:

Jay wrote:

The underlying problem as I see it has been the public assault on bourgeoisie values over the past century. They were mocked by the artistic and intellectual classes because those types felt constrained within them. But what were they? Basic unspoken rules that allowed people to live and work together in close proximity while maintaining a level of civility. At heart, it allowed a measure of trust to form between people of a common culture who could depend on one another to not fuck each other over at every opportunity. We no longer have this. When I walk down the street I fully expect people to cut lines, act like assholes, puke in the streets, walk into each other while staring at phone screens, etc. Instead of everyone holding each other accountable for poor behavior we hear cries of "don't judge me!" instead. Bourgeoisie values are what allow the Scandinavian countries to flourish with hefty welfare states. They judge the shit out of each other, or did until recently. Now it's being replaced with post-modern moral equivalency and the systems are being exploited.

That's literally capitalism's fault. As I mentioned last month, I was reading the book Conservatives Against Capitalism. Russel Kirk, Novak, and Irving Kristol all pointed out in the 60's that capitalism as was being practiced in the modern west was degrading society and undermining protestant and bourgeoisie values.

You really can't cheer lead for capitalism and libertarianism but also complain about the undermining of bourgeoisie values. "Don't judge me!"+"leave me alone" is kinda what libertarianism is all about isn't it? The neocons whose idea you parroted saw libertarianism as part of the problem.

I really liked this book and found myself in deep agreement with a lot of it especially the neocon arguments.

Capitalism is indefensible but not just because of the inequality and material harm but also because of the deep cultural harm it is doing to us. How can you defend a system that allows doctors to profit off of sexual reassignment surgery on children and helping women kill their babies in abortion centers? It shouldn't be okay that the media pumps rap music into the heads of kids that glorify drug use and criminality. Kids shouldn't be encouraged to make bad choices and live like the Kardashians but instead focus on their educations and working!

Dilbert_X wrote:

Jay wrote:

]The underlying problem as I see it has been the public assault on bourgeoisie values over the past century. They were mocked by the artistic and intellectual classes because those types felt constrained within them. But what were they? Basic unspoken rules that allowed people to live and work together in close proximity while maintaining a level of civility. At heart, it allowed a measure of trust to form between people of a common culture who could depend on one another to not fuck each other over at every opportunity. We no longer have this. When I walk down the street I fully expect people to cut lines, act like assholes, puke in the streets, walk into each other while staring at phone screens, etc. Instead of everyone holding each other accountable for poor behavior we hear cries of "don't judge me!" instead. Bourgeoisie values are what allow the Scandinavian countries to flourish with hefty welfare states. They judge the shit out of each other, or did until recently. Now it's being replaced with post-modern moral equivalency and the systems are being exploited.

I say all this because most of the laws written today are basically "don't be an asshole laws" and they shouldn't even be necessary. They're also almost completely unenforceable.

People can hold each other accountable in small villages, the idea of running a city on community disapproval of poor behaviour is absurd.
That said, the Japanese manage it with good upbringing, the concept of community and thoroughly enforced laws. But they have a fairly homogeneous culture and a decent educational system, which teaches civics, not 'me first!'. The racial mishmash, egotism and absence of community you have will only work with thorough law enforcement.
I don't see why the laws you're complaining about are 'unenforceable', most likely its a soundbite you've heard somewhere.

No one knows how many laws there are in the United States.  Apparently, no one can count that high.

Don't be absurd. Anyway, if your theory that laws just consist of "don't be an asshole" then don't be an asshole and you won't fall foul of the law however many specific laws there are.

What I can't count is the number of times we've had this 'there should be no laws, the free market will sort it all out' discussion.

As for your 'its ok to ignore asinine laws' argument:

In my street we have:

- One resident who thinks its asinine that he should have to wear clothes on his property - if a child looks into his garden and sees a morbidly obese 65yr old doing gardening while naked then its the childs fault for invading his privacy.

- One resident who thinks its asinine that he can't do band practice until 4am

- One resident who thinks its asinine that he can't let his dog bark 24/7

- One resident who thinks its OK to poison barking dogs, he's killed at least two so far

- Three residents who thought it was asinine they couldn't deal drugs from their homes

- One resident who thinks its asinine not to be allowed to do 100kmh in a 50kmh zone

- One resident who thought it was asinine that he couldn't threaten to shoot people who trim trees on their own property

- One resident who thinks its asinine that he can't set up a video camera to record his neighbours kids in their swimming pool

- One resident who thinks its asinine that he needs council approval for building work on his property

The solution here is clearly to remove all the asinine laws and let people sort it out amongst themselves, because its too many laws that are the problem, people just can't keep track of them.

Do you live in Boganshire?

Dilbert_X wrote:

You're missing the point dumbass.

Breaking news Jay misses the point of an entire debate, more at ten! (when it'll happen again)