I Pit Obama and his Kool Aid Drinking Puppets

[Rael]

@BrainGlutton

It might not be what they want, but it’s what we’ll all get, if they get what they want. Inevitable consequences.

Look around the world, at all the places where things in general go as well as or better than in the U.S., all the industrialized democracies. One thing you won’t find in any of them is minimal or ineffectual government.

American Libertarians and conservatives show an astonishingly persistent, almost inexplicable obliviousness to the fact that the rest of the world exists, let alone to the possibility that America might profitably learn something from other countries.

Hmm. As of 2006, the United States accepts more legal immigrants as permanent residents than any other country in the world. Since it’s so wonderful everywhere else…thats a lot of gluttons for punishment.

Cite: http://www.dhs.gov/ximgtn/statistics/publications/yearbook.shtm

[Inner_Stickler]

@Rael

Hmm. As of 2006, the United States accepts more legal immigrants as permanent residents than any other country in the world. Since it’s so wonderful everywhere else…thats a lot of gluttons for punishment.

Cite: http://www.dhs.gov/ximgtn/statistics/publications/yearbook.shtm

It’s not wonderful everywhere else and I don’t think anyone is claiming that the US is the WORST PLACE TO LIVE in the world. And if Mexico were attached to Sweden, I suspect that Sweden would have the same immigration problems the US has. (I picked Sweden because I believe it has one of the higher instances of socialist policies in place but please feel free to swap with the high living standards country of your choice.)

[Ludovic]

@Rael

As Mark Twain pointed out, “Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.”

I, for one, trust Mark Twain and everyone who quotes that. How could so many people be wrong?

[Merijeek]

@elucidator

Yeah, can’t do *anything * right! See the moon? See the footprints? You were saying?

Private enterprise could have done it cheaper, as evidenced by all the [echo]Spaaaaaace Touristsssssss[/echo] hopping around up there as we speak.

Silly Librul, Fax are for hominids

-Joe

[Revtim]

@Rael

Think again…You could be paying less than you are now. The postal service has statutory monopoly on first class mail Private companies can’t legally compete. Private mail carriers can offer services for urgent letters, but they are LEGALLY REQUIRED to charge $3 or twice the postal rate, whichever is greater.
!

Can you provide an example of a private mail company in another country that is cheaper and/or more reliable than our mail system in the US?

[VinylTurnip]

I’ve always had good luck with W.A.S.T.E., myself.

[magellan01]

@BrainGlutton

It might not be what they want, but it’s what we’ll all get, if they get what they want. Inevitable consequences.

Nonsense. Objectivists believe in the rule of law. They also believe that you cannot take from a person that which is theirs and that they have a right to the product of labor and mind.

[BrainGlutton]

@magellan01

Nonsense. Objectivists believe in the rule of law. They also believe that you cannot take from a person that which is theirs and that they have a right to the product of labor and mind.

They believe in minimalist government or none, and that way lies Mexico, not the libertarian Mary Suetopia depicted in L. Neil Smith’s The Probability Broach.

[BrainGlutton]

From “The American Paradox,” by Ted Halstead, published in The Atlantic Monthly, January/February 2003:

Nothing illustrates America’s profound contradictions more starkly than a comparison with other advanced democracies: among these the United States is either the very best or the very worst performer on a wide range of social and economic criteria. We are simultaneously the leader and the laggard among our peers—almost always exceptional, almost never in the middle.

Without question we are the richest, most powerful, and most creative nation on the planet. Our economic and military might stems from our embrace of a particularly high-octane brand of capitalism, supported by financial markets that are deeper and broader than any others, labor markets that are more flexible, and a culture of entrepreneurialism that is unparalleled. These attributes have turned America into the world’s unrivaled engine of innovation and wealth creation. We boast more patent applications than the entire European Union; almost three times as many Nobel laureates as Britain, our closest competitor; and more business start-ups per capita than almost every other advanced democracy. One in twelve Americans will start his or her own business, evincing another outstanding American trait—our great tolerance for risk. And our export of movies, television shows, music, and fast-food chains makes us, for better or worse, the dominant cultural force on the globe.

But like the Roman god Janus, America has two faces. Despite being the richest nation on the planet, we suffer from higher rates of poverty, infant mortality, homicide, and HIV infection, and from greater economic inequality, than other advanced democracies. We have far more uninsured citizens, and a lower life expectancy. On a per capita basis the United States emits considerably more greenhouse gases and produces more solid waste. We spend more per student on K-12 education than almost all other modern democracies, yet our students perform near the bottom on international tests. We have the highest rates of teen pregnancy and among the highest proportions of single parents, and American parents have the least amount of free time to spend with their children; indeed, the average American works nine weeks more each year than the average European. Our performance on many social indicators is so poor, in fact, that an outsider looking at these numbers alone might conclude that we were a developing nation.

How do we reconcile these two faces of America? To a remarkable degree the United States seems to have exchanged social cohesion and a broad-based middle class for economic dynamism and personal freedom. Have we abandoned what used to be referred to as the common good?

<snip>

THE TWO FACES OF AMERICA

This list of “bests” and “worsts” is based on a variety of sources—including statistics from the United Nations, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, and a number of other groups and experts—but the basic criteria are consistent. Among advanced democracies, America had to rank in the top three for a category to be listed under “bests” and in the bottom three for a category to be listed under “worsts.” (Where applicable, all rankings were determined on a rate basis or as a percentage of population.)

Bests-------------------------------------------------Worsts

Gross domestic product------------------------------Poverty
Productivity---------------------------------------------Economic inequality
Business start-ups------------------------------------Carbon-dioxide emissions
Long-term unemployment---------------------------Life expectancy
Expenditure on education---------------------------Infant mortality
University graduates----------------------------------Homicide
R&D expenditure---------------------------------------Health-care coverage
High-tech exports--------------------------------------HIV infection
Movies exported---------------------------------------Teen pregnancy
Breadth of stock ownership--------------------------Personal savings
Volunteerism--------------------------------------------Voter participation
Charitable giving---------------------------------------Obesity

Each approach to the social contract has its pluses and minuses, but on balance America has made a very bad bargain for itself, and should learn by the examples of others. Obama, at least, is, I think, willing to do that.

[magellan01]

@Shayna

No, you dumbfuck. I think that the less government gives a rat’s fuck about its citizens, the more corrupt it’s inevitably going to become, and the poorer its citizenry is going to become as a result. This fact is borne out by merely observing the realities of how it’s played out within the borders of our closest neighbor to the south.

Amazingly, you really are that dumb. Just using Mexico as a comparison in this regards shows both your ignorance and stupidity. In Mexico, the power was never in the people’s hands. They went from a basically feudal system where all the land and power resided with a few families to where they are now. Corruption is rampant, in trying to keep the power to flow to the people. You know, just because Mexico is close, doesn’t mean it’s similar.

@Shayna

You demand a government that doesn’t take care of people – let everyone fend for their damn selves. I’ve got mine, so fuck everyone but me. Welcome to Mexico, pal.

Ohboyohboyohboy. What Objectivists would want is a government that allows, and encourages, people to take care of themselves. And a series of laws that makes that as easy as possible. Tell me, why is that necessarily a bad thing? I’m no Objectivist, but you paint an ignorant, ridiculous caricature of them. And cite, please, for me demanding a government that doesn’t take care of people.

@Shayna

You think people aren’t living in “houses” made from shipping pallets and garbage bags? Think again! I’ve personally helped tear several down to build a proper structure out of real building materials as a volunteer with Corazon’s “Build a House in a Day” program. I also lived in Mexico for a year and a half, and witnessed the abject poverty first-hand on a daily basis.

When you can say the same, I might give a flying fuck what you have to say on the subject.

WINNER. WINNER. And the Stupidity Trifecta is achieved by Shayna. So, if someone hasn’t lived in Mexico and hasn’t volunteered tearing down garbage bag houses and improving them, they have nothing of value to say on the subject? Okay. Kinda would change the nature of SDMB. But if you can get a consensus on that point from the members, I’ll buy it it. Why don’t you open a thread and float the idea? Or is the bitch not quite that stupid?

Ooooh, the suspense…

[magellan01]

@BrainGlutton

They believe in minimalist government or none, and that way lies Mexico, not the libertarian Mary Suetopia depicted in L. Neil Smith’s The Probability Broach.

Show me one Objectivist that believes in zero government. Just one who believes that we shouldn’t have the rule of law and a means to enforce it. It’s fair to criticize Objectivism as being somewhat utopian, but you go WAY too far.

[Gangster_Octopus]

So Rael who are you voting for?

[BrainGlutton]

@magellan01

Show me one Objectivist that believes in zero government.

Atlas Shrugged, IIRC, ends in the total collapse of government with no hint a new one will replace it.

[Baldwin]

Rael, I know all this Objectivism stuff seems exciting and revolutionary, and seems to shine in your mind with perfect clarity. But in a couple of years, when you graduate and you’re trying to get into college, you’ll also be gaining a broader view of the world, and will come to understand how much you depend on the goodwill and work of others in the society of which you’re part. (And you are part of it, like it or not, unless you find a wilderness spot to live in where you don’t benefit from any kind of collective effort. Which you won’t, because you’re a whiny bitch.)

So, good luck with that. In the meantime, if you want to have a rational debate about specific parts of Senator Obama’s campaign platform, that would be great.

[Larry_Borgia]

I like that he used the word “Sheeple.” You don’t see that word much anymore.

Baa.

[elucidator]

@Baldwin

Rael, I know all this Objectivism stuff seems exciting and revolutionary, and seems to shine in your mind with perfect clarity. But in a couple of years, when you graduate and you’re trying to get into college, you’ll also be gaining a broader view of the world, and will come to understand …

That could work. For me, it required a massive therapy of sex, drugs and rock 'n roll. Drastic, to be sure, but I was severely infected.

[Lightnin]

@Gangster Octopus

So Rael who are you voting for?

This is what I’d like to know, as well.

I’ve noticed a very annoying trend lately (maybe it’s been seen before, but I just wasn’t paying attention). We tend to get posters who are dead set against Obama- they think he’s the worst possible Presidential candidate, EVAR, and aren’t afraid to let you know that they think so. Words such as “Obamaniacs”, “Libtards”, and “Sheep” are thrown about like hand grenades.

However, they never actually say who they’re voting for, and why their guy would be a better choice. I guess that way they don’t have to defend their guy.

We need to start callin’ them on this shit.

[stolichnaya]

Rael is voting for himself. Just as you should vote for yourself. That way, when you have extraordinary success, you can feel comfortable congratulating yourself for it.

[BrainGlutton]

In an article on Barry Commoner’s third-party run for president in 1976, Robert Anton Wilson commented, “Politically I suppose I should have supported Ed Clark, but I’m not that kind of Libertarian; I don’t hate poor people.” (The Libertarian nominee that year was Roger MacBride; but Wilson was writing early in the year.)

[BrainGlutton]

@Larry Borgia

I like that he used the word “Sheeple.” You don’t see that word much anymore.

Baa.

Reminds me of an apparently Libertarian message-button I’ve seen at SF conventions: “Democracy is three wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.” Which is clever, and a lie. In real life, democracy is three sheep and a wolf voting on what to have for dinner; the sheep outnumber the wolves and that’s the only defense they’ve got.