Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Those needles littering the streets? Yeah, the city handed them out - religious left strikes again
Comments
-
They’re a bunch of Nazis, which translates to socialists in Right Winglish.PurpleThrobber said:
Microsoft cockblocked my edit.HHusky said:
True. I am ideologicallyUW_Doog_Bot said:
That's because all of the policies you advocate align with your ideological beliefs. Of course you don't care what label they carry.HHusky said:
Humans respond to incentives. Positive and negative incentives. I'm more interested in good or effective policy than any of the ideological labels.YellowSnow said:
I don't think humans have as much free will as many on the right would like to believe. But we can also agree that humans respond really well to carrots and sticks. The problem with progressive policy is that it's all carrots and no sticks.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Sure, the difference being that real liberalism seeks to protect the small amount of free will individuals may have.YellowSnow said:
The correct answer is probably somewhere between free will and determinism. Neither extreme of the debate works for me.UW_Doog_Bot said:
The philosophy that individuals have no agency or free will is at the heart of progressivism.RaceBannon said:In this thread H argues that junkies have no choice or free will. Like Trump's brother who killed himself
In the other thread H argues that all you have to do is be born lucky and you'll end up a billionaire. Like Trump
As the saying goes, Kunt Logic - is there nothing it can't do?
Progressivism denies agency and seeks to eliminate any that we may possess.practicalretardedchallenged. -
But here's where my primary critique libertarianism or classical liberalism comes into play...UW_Doog_Bot said:
Except that the concept of government as social engineer is outside of the premise of government as limited to protecting ones individual freedoms. Enumerated powers is a dead concept on the left.YellowSnow said:
I don't think humans have as much free will as many on the right would like to believe. But we can also agree that humans respond really well to carrots and sticks. The problem with progressive policy is that it's all carrots and no sticks.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Sure, the difference being that real liberalism seeks to protect the small amount of free will individuals may have.YellowSnow said:
The correct answer is probably somewhere between free will and determinism. Neither extreme of the debate works for me.UW_Doog_Bot said:
The philosophy that individuals have no agency or free will is at the heart of progressivism.RaceBannon said:In this thread H argues that junkies have no choice or free will. Like Trump's brother who killed himself
In the other thread H argues that all you have to do is be born lucky and you'll end up a billionaire. Like Trump
As the saying goes, Kunt Logic - is there nothing it can't do?
Progressivism denies agency and seeks to eliminate any that we may possess.
If the premise of government is to secure our unalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, we can agree then that there is cost associated with the state protecting us from those that suck. When a large percentage of the population is sucking at life and doesn't buy into the system, government can either work towards creating more equality ofoutcomeopportunity, or we've got to spend more on prisons and policing. -
And the carrots are all provided at others' expense.YellowSnow said:
I don't think humans have as much free will as many on the right would like to believe. But we can also agree that humans respond really well to carrots and sticks. The problem with progressive policy is that it's all carrots and no sticks.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Sure, the difference being that real liberalism seeks to protect the small amount of free will individuals may have.YellowSnow said:
The correct answer is probably somewhere between free will and determinism. Neither extreme of the debate works for me.UW_Doog_Bot said:
The philosophy that individuals have no agency or free will is at the heart of progressivism.RaceBannon said:In this thread H argues that junkies have no choice or free will. Like Trump's brother who killed himself
In the other thread H argues that all you have to do is be born lucky and you'll end up a billionaire. Like Trump
As the saying goes, Kunt Logic - is there nothing it can't do?
Progressivism denies agency and seeks to eliminate any that we may possess. -
TurdBomber said:
And the carrots are all provided at others' expense.YellowSnow said:
I don't think humans have as much free will as many on the right would like to believe. But we can also agree that humans respond really well to carrots and sticks. The problem with progressive policy is that it's all carrots and no sticks.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Sure, the difference being that real liberalism seeks to protect the small amount of free will individuals may have.YellowSnow said:
The correct answer is probably somewhere between free will and determinism. Neither extreme of the debate works for me.UW_Doog_Bot said:
The philosophy that individuals have no agency or free will is at the heart of progressivism.RaceBannon said:In this thread H argues that junkies have no choice or free will. Like Trump's brother who killed himself
In the other thread H argues that all you have to do is be born lucky and you'll end up a billionaire. Like Trump
As the saying goes, Kunt Logic - is there nothing it can't do?
Progressivism denies agency and seeks to eliminate any that we may possess.
There's no carrots or toilet paper under socialism.
Maybe some shitty ones mixed in with peas. Sukatash sucks.
-
No system of government can help a morally deplorable populace.YellowSnow said:
But here's where my primary critique libertarianism or classical liberalism comes into play...UW_Doog_Bot said:
Except that the concept of government as social engineer is outside of the premise of government as limited to protecting ones individual freedoms. Enumerated powers is a dead concept on the left.YellowSnow said:
I don't think humans have as much free will as many on the right would like to believe. But we can also agree that humans respond really well to carrots and sticks. The problem with progressive policy is that it's all carrots and no sticks.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Sure, the difference being that real liberalism seeks to protect the small amount of free will individuals may have.YellowSnow said:
The correct answer is probably somewhere between free will and determinism. Neither extreme of the debate works for me.UW_Doog_Bot said:
The philosophy that individuals have no agency or free will is at the heart of progressivism.RaceBannon said:In this thread H argues that junkies have no choice or free will. Like Trump's brother who killed himself
In the other thread H argues that all you have to do is be born lucky and you'll end up a billionaire. Like Trump
As the saying goes, Kunt Logic - is there nothing it can't do?
Progressivism denies agency and seeks to eliminate any that we may possess.
If the premise of government is to secure our unalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, we can agree then that there is cost associated with the state protecting us from those that suck. When a large percentage of the population is sucking at life and doesn't buy into the system, government can either work towards creating more equality ofoutcomeopportunity, or we've got to spend more on prisons and policing.
If you meant, "sucking at life" economically, well then I would point out that free markets, devoid of government central planning, have consistently performed better for everyone in a populace than any social engineering has ever achieved.
The concept that free markets have ever "run wild" is built on an American idea that laissez faire capitalism was responsible for the guilded age, which is patently false. Most robber barons built their empires using imminent domain, lobbying, and government approved monopolies, not the free market.
Very few other countries have flirted with freedom the way the US has. Most that have are pretty high on the economic development scale. -
I feel like we need to come up with agreed upon definitions of what is socialism and what it not socialism for the tug. There's no shortage of carrots in a lot of countries that are free market but with high levels of wealth redistribution such as ours. There, however, have always been carrot shortages in countries where the state owns the means of production and plans the economy.PurpleThrobber said:TurdBomber said:
And the carrots are all provided at others' expense.YellowSnow said:
I don't think humans have as much free will as many on the right would like to believe. But we can also agree that humans respond really well to carrots and sticks. The problem with progressive policy is that it's all carrots and no sticks.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Sure, the difference being that real liberalism seeks to protect the small amount of free will individuals may have.YellowSnow said:
The correct answer is probably somewhere between free will and determinism. Neither extreme of the debate works for me.UW_Doog_Bot said:
The philosophy that individuals have no agency or free will is at the heart of progressivism.RaceBannon said:In this thread H argues that junkies have no choice or free will. Like Trump's brother who killed himself
In the other thread H argues that all you have to do is be born lucky and you'll end up a billionaire. Like Trump
As the saying goes, Kunt Logic - is there nothing it can't do?
Progressivism denies agency and seeks to eliminate any that we may possess.
There's no carrots or toilet paper under socialism.
Maybe some shitty ones mixed in with peas. Sukatash sucks. -
I'm hearing that if the government only plans certain sectors of the economy the rules of economics completely change though.YellowSnow said:
I feel like we need to come up with agreed upon definitions of what is socialism and what it not socialism for the tug. There's no shortage of carrots in a lot of countries that are free market but with high levels of wealth redistribution such as ours. There, however, have always been carrot shortages in countries where the state owns the means of production and plans the economy.PurpleThrobber said:TurdBomber said:
And the carrots are all provided at others' expense.YellowSnow said:
I don't think humans have as much free will as many on the right would like to believe. But we can also agree that humans respond really well to carrots and sticks. The problem with progressive policy is that it's all carrots and no sticks.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Sure, the difference being that real liberalism seeks to protect the small amount of free will individuals may have.YellowSnow said:
The correct answer is probably somewhere between free will and determinism. Neither extreme of the debate works for me.UW_Doog_Bot said:
The philosophy that individuals have no agency or free will is at the heart of progressivism.RaceBannon said:In this thread H argues that junkies have no choice or free will. Like Trump's brother who killed himself
In the other thread H argues that all you have to do is be born lucky and you'll end up a billionaire. Like Trump
As the saying goes, Kunt Logic - is there nothing it can't do?
Progressivism denies agency and seeks to eliminate any that we may possess.
There's no carrots or toilet paper under socialism.
Maybe some shitty ones mixed in with peas. Sukatash sucks. -
Or let them die like we will need to do with senior citizens to save social security and sick people so we can have medicare for all.YellowSnow said:
But here's where my primary critique libertarianism or classical liberalism comes into play...UW_Doog_Bot said:
Except that the concept of government as social engineer is outside of the premise of government as limited to protecting ones individual freedoms. Enumerated powers is a dead concept on the left.YellowSnow said:
I don't think humans have as much free will as many on the right would like to believe. But we can also agree that humans respond really well to carrots and sticks. The problem with progressive policy is that it's all carrots and no sticks.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Sure, the difference being that real liberalism seeks to protect the small amount of free will individuals may have.YellowSnow said:
The correct answer is probably somewhere between free will and determinism. Neither extreme of the debate works for me.UW_Doog_Bot said:
The philosophy that individuals have no agency or free will is at the heart of progressivism.RaceBannon said:In this thread H argues that junkies have no choice or free will. Like Trump's brother who killed himself
In the other thread H argues that all you have to do is be born lucky and you'll end up a billionaire. Like Trump
As the saying goes, Kunt Logic - is there nothing it can't do?
Progressivism denies agency and seeks to eliminate any that we may possess.
If the premise of government is to secure our unalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, we can agree then that there is cost associated with the state protecting us from those that suck. When a large percentage of the population is sucking at life and doesn't buy into the system, government can either work towards creating more equality ofoutcomeopportunity, or we've got to spend more on prisons and policing.
We have equality of opportunity. If people suck and hate the system they can leave or die.
That's called a stick -
I don't know that I would agree with that. We have equality before the law, but a lot of one's outcome in life depends upon you're genetic inheritance (IQ and other things) and your home environment from age zero to 18. Now life's not fucking fair and I get that and I don't want to be taxed at 50% to make it so.RaceBannon said:
Or let them die like we will need to do with senior citizens to save social security and sick people so we can have medicare for all.YellowSnow said:
But here's where my primary critique libertarianism or classical liberalism comes into play...UW_Doog_Bot said:
Except that the concept of government as social engineer is outside of the premise of government as limited to protecting ones individual freedoms. Enumerated powers is a dead concept on the left.YellowSnow said:
I don't think humans have as much free will as many on the right would like to believe. But we can also agree that humans respond really well to carrots and sticks. The problem with progressive policy is that it's all carrots and no sticks.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Sure, the difference being that real liberalism seeks to protect the small amount of free will individuals may have.YellowSnow said:
The correct answer is probably somewhere between free will and determinism. Neither extreme of the debate works for me.UW_Doog_Bot said:
The philosophy that individuals have no agency or free will is at the heart of progressivism.RaceBannon said:In this thread H argues that junkies have no choice or free will. Like Trump's brother who killed himself
In the other thread H argues that all you have to do is be born lucky and you'll end up a billionaire. Like Trump
As the saying goes, Kunt Logic - is there nothing it can't do?
Progressivism denies agency and seeks to eliminate any that we may possess.
If the premise of government is to secure our unalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, we can agree then that there is cost associated with the state protecting us from those that suck. When a large percentage of the population is sucking at life and doesn't buy into the system, government can either work towards creating more equality ofoutcomeopportunity, or we've got to spend more on prisons and policing.
We have equality of opportunity. If people suck and hate the system they can leave or die.
That's called a stick
-
Opportunity doesn't depend on birth. Too many horrible childhoods leading to success and rich kids dying in the gutter from drugsYellowSnow said:
I don't know that I would agree with that. We have equality before the law, but a lot of one's outcome in life depends upon you're genetic inheritance (IQ and other things) and your home environment from age zero to 18. Now life's not fucking fair and I get that and I don't want to be taxed at 50% to make it so.RaceBannon said:
Or let them die like we will need to do with senior citizens to save social security and sick people so we can have medicare for all.YellowSnow said:
But here's where my primary critique libertarianism or classical liberalism comes into play...UW_Doog_Bot said:
Except that the concept of government as social engineer is outside of the premise of government as limited to protecting ones individual freedoms. Enumerated powers is a dead concept on the left.YellowSnow said:
I don't think humans have as much free will as many on the right would like to believe. But we can also agree that humans respond really well to carrots and sticks. The problem with progressive policy is that it's all carrots and no sticks.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Sure, the difference being that real liberalism seeks to protect the small amount of free will individuals may have.YellowSnow said:
The correct answer is probably somewhere between free will and determinism. Neither extreme of the debate works for me.UW_Doog_Bot said:
The philosophy that individuals have no agency or free will is at the heart of progressivism.RaceBannon said:In this thread H argues that junkies have no choice or free will. Like Trump's brother who killed himself
In the other thread H argues that all you have to do is be born lucky and you'll end up a billionaire. Like Trump
As the saying goes, Kunt Logic - is there nothing it can't do?
Progressivism denies agency and seeks to eliminate any that we may possess.
If the premise of government is to secure our unalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, we can agree then that there is cost associated with the state protecting us from those that suck. When a large percentage of the population is sucking at life and doesn't buy into the system, government can either work towards creating more equality ofoutcomeopportunity, or we've got to spend more on prisons and policing.
We have equality of opportunity. If people suck and hate the system they can leave or die.
That's called a stick
Life isn't fair. JFK was right. But America is the last best hope. Reagan was right.
Teach kids the system is rigged against them and they have no shot and they might believe it.
There is no utopia on this earth. Only toil and trouble. Thank God for drugs -
Canada and the UK both have higher rates of upward mobility than the last best hope.
-
No they don'tHHusky said:Canada and the UK both have higher rates of upward mobility than the last best hope.
-
Yeap, by slim margins, we should probably stop taxing american workers so hard.HHusky said:Canada and the UK both have higher rates of upward mobility than the last best hope.
-
Agree with the last 3 sentences. The first is probably fodder for another day.RaceBannon said:
Opportunity doesn't depend on birth. Too many horrible childhoods leading to success and rich kids dying in the gutter from drugsYellowSnow said:
I don't know that I would agree with that. We have equality before the law, but a lot of one's outcome in life depends upon you're genetic inheritance (IQ and other things) and your home environment from age zero to 18. Now life's not fucking fair and I get that and I don't want to be taxed at 50% to make it so.RaceBannon said:
Or let them die like we will need to do with senior citizens to save social security and sick people so we can have medicare for all.YellowSnow said:
But here's where my primary critique libertarianism or classical liberalism comes into play...UW_Doog_Bot said:
Except that the concept of government as social engineer is outside of the premise of government as limited to protecting ones individual freedoms. Enumerated powers is a dead concept on the left.YellowSnow said:
I don't think humans have as much free will as many on the right would like to believe. But we can also agree that humans respond really well to carrots and sticks. The problem with progressive policy is that it's all carrots and no sticks.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Sure, the difference being that real liberalism seeks to protect the small amount of free will individuals may have.YellowSnow said:
The correct answer is probably somewhere between free will and determinism. Neither extreme of the debate works for me.UW_Doog_Bot said:
The philosophy that individuals have no agency or free will is at the heart of progressivism.RaceBannon said:In this thread H argues that junkies have no choice or free will. Like Trump's brother who killed himself
In the other thread H argues that all you have to do is be born lucky and you'll end up a billionaire. Like Trump
As the saying goes, Kunt Logic - is there nothing it can't do?
Progressivism denies agency and seeks to eliminate any that we may possess.
If the premise of government is to secure our unalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, we can agree then that there is cost associated with the state protecting us from those that suck. When a large percentage of the population is sucking at life and doesn't buy into the system, government can either work towards creating more equality ofoutcomeopportunity, or we've got to spend more on prisons and policing.
We have equality of opportunity. If people suck and hate the system they can leave or die.
That's called a stick
Life isn't fair. JFK was right. But America is the last best hope. Reagan was right.
Teach kids the system is rigged against them and they have no shot and they might believe it.
There is no utopia on this earth. Only toil and trouble. Thank God for drugs
-
Unfortunately it’s not a matter of opinion. There’s numbers and stuff.RaceBannon said:
No they don'tHHusky said:Canada and the UK both have higher rates of upward mobility than the last best hope.
-
UW_Doog_Bot said:
Yeap, by slim margins, we should probably stop taxing american workers so hard.HHusky said:Canada and the UK both have higher rates of upward mobility than the last best hope.
I take your point. We should emulate the UK and Canada. -
And? Lets see themHHusky said:
Unfortunately it’s not a matter of opinion. There’s numbers and stuff.RaceBannon said:
No they don'tHHusky said:Canada and the UK both have higher rates of upward mobility than the last best hope.
You don't actually think I'd take your word for anything do you? -
https://www.businessinsider.com/the-american-dream-of-social-mobility-2017-3?r=US&IR=TRaceBannon said:
And? Lets see themHHusky said:
Unfortunately it’s not a matter of opinion. There’s numbers and stuff.RaceBannon said:
No they don'tHHusky said:Canada and the UK both have higher rates of upward mobility than the last best hope.
You don't actually think I'd take your word for anything do you? -
-
How many of those people in the bottom 5th are the illiterate dirt farmers you want to let pour in here by the millions O'Keefed?HHusky said:
https://www.businessinsider.com/the-american-dream-of-social-mobility-2017-3?r=US&IR=TRaceBannon said:
And? Lets see themHHusky said:
Unfortunately it’s not a matter of opinion. There’s numbers and stuff.RaceBannon said:
No they don'tHHusky said:Canada and the UK both have higher rates of upward mobility than the last best hope.
You don't actually think I'd take your word for anything do you? -
[Now, a study published by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis has found a way to measure that decay. It does so by coming up with a simple, mathematical definition of the American Dream as represented by social mobility defined as "the probability that a child born to parents in the bottom fifth of the income distribution makes the leap all the way to the top fifth of the income distribution."]HHusky said:
https://www.businessinsider.com/the-american-dream-of-social-mobility-2017-3?r=US&IR=TRaceBannon said:
And? Lets see themHHusky said:
Unfortunately it’s not a matter of opinion. There’s numbers and stuff.RaceBannon said:
No they don'tHHusky said:Canada and the UK both have higher rates of upward mobility than the last best hope.
You don't actually think I'd take your word for anything do you?
It's a lot easier to make a sigma jump when the standard deviation is much smaller. I'm sure you know that what with your strong background in math and numbers and stuff. -
ElevenSFGbob said:
How many of those people in the bottom 5th are the illiterate dirt farmers you want to let pour in here by the millions O'Keefed?HHusky said:
https://www.businessinsider.com/the-american-dream-of-social-mobility-2017-3?r=US&IR=TRaceBannon said:
And? Lets see themHHusky said:
Unfortunately it’s not a matter of opinion. There’s numbers and stuff.RaceBannon said:
No they don'tHHusky said:Canada and the UK both have higher rates of upward mobility than the last best hope.
You don't actually think I'd take your word for anything do you? -
No Greek System jokes please.UW_Doog_Bot said:
[Now, a study published by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis has found a way to measure that decay. It does so by coming up with a simple, mathematical definition of the American Dream as represented by social mobility defined as "the probability that a child born to parents in the bottom fifth of the income distribution makes the leap all the way to the top fifth of the income distribution."]HHusky said:
https://www.businessinsider.com/the-american-dream-of-social-mobility-2017-3?r=US&IR=TRaceBannon said:
And? Lets see themHHusky said:
Unfortunately it’s not a matter of opinion. There’s numbers and stuff.RaceBannon said:
No they don'tHHusky said:Canada and the UK both have higher rates of upward mobility than the last best hope.
You don't actually think I'd take your word for anything do you?
It's a lot easier to make a sigma jump when the standard deviation is much smaller. I'm sure you know that what with your strong background in math and numbers and stuff. -
Good joke. Much like your pretense to math and evidence.HHusky said:
No Greek System jokes please.UW_Doog_Bot said:
[Now, a study published by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis has found a way to measure that decay. It does so by coming up with a simple, mathematical definition of the American Dream as represented by social mobility defined as "the probability that a child born to parents in the bottom fifth of the income distribution makes the leap all the way to the top fifth of the income distribution."]HHusky said:
https://www.businessinsider.com/the-american-dream-of-social-mobility-2017-3?r=US&IR=TRaceBannon said:
And? Lets see themHHusky said:
Unfortunately it’s not a matter of opinion. There’s numbers and stuff.RaceBannon said:
No they don'tHHusky said:Canada and the UK both have higher rates of upward mobility than the last best hope.
You don't actually think I'd take your word for anything do you?
It's a lot easier to make a sigma jump when the standard deviation is much smaller. I'm sure you know that what with your strong background in math and numbers and stuff. -
You’re free to argue it doesn’t mean anything, but the study is evidence.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Good joke. Much like your pretense to math and evidence.HHusky said:
No Greek System jokes please.UW_Doog_Bot said:
[Now, a study published by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis has found a way to measure that decay. It does so by coming up with a simple, mathematical definition of the American Dream as represented by social mobility defined as "the probability that a child born to parents in the bottom fifth of the income distribution makes the leap all the way to the top fifth of the income distribution."]HHusky said:
https://www.businessinsider.com/the-american-dream-of-social-mobility-2017-3?r=US&IR=TRaceBannon said:
And? Lets see themHHusky said:
Unfortunately it’s not a matter of opinion. There’s numbers and stuff.RaceBannon said:
No they don'tHHusky said:Canada and the UK both have higher rates of upward mobility than the last best hope.
You don't actually think I'd take your word for anything do you?
It's a lot easier to make a sigma jump when the standard deviation is much smaller. I'm sure you know that what with your strong background in math and numbers and stuff. -
* gilded ageUW_Doog_Bot said:
No system of government can help a morally deplorable populace.YellowSnow said:
But here's where my primary critique libertarianism or classical liberalism comes into play...UW_Doog_Bot said:
Except that the concept of government as social engineer is outside of the premise of government as limited to protecting ones individual freedoms. Enumerated powers is a dead concept on the left.YellowSnow said:
I don't think humans have as much free will as many on the right would like to believe. But we can also agree that humans respond really well to carrots and sticks. The problem with progressive policy is that it's all carrots and no sticks.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Sure, the difference being that real liberalism seeks to protect the small amount of free will individuals may have.YellowSnow said:
The correct answer is probably somewhere between free will and determinism. Neither extreme of the debate works for me.UW_Doog_Bot said:
The philosophy that individuals have no agency or free will is at the heart of progressivism.RaceBannon said:In this thread H argues that junkies have no choice or free will. Like Trump's brother who killed himself
In the other thread H argues that all you have to do is be born lucky and you'll end up a billionaire. Like Trump
As the saying goes, Kunt Logic - is there nothing it can't do?
Progressivism denies agency and seeks to eliminate any that we may possess.
If the premise of government is to secure our unalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, we can agree then that there is cost associated with the state protecting us from those that suck. When a large percentage of the population is sucking at life and doesn't buy into the system, government can either work towards creating more equality ofoutcomeopportunity, or we've got to spend more on prisons and policing.
If you meant, "sucking at life" economically, well then I would point out that free markets, devoid of government central planning, have consistently performed better for everyone in a populace than any social engineering has ever achieved.
The concept that free markets have ever "run wild" is built on an American idea that laissez faire capitalism was responsible for the guilded age, which is patently false. Most robber barons built their empires using imminent domain, lobbying, and government approved monopolies, not the free market.
Very few other countries have flirted with freedom the way the US has. Most that have are pretty high on the economic development scale.
* Eminent domain
Trump didn’t pay any taxes in the 1980s (and who knows if ever). If free markets weren’t the reason for the fortunes of Stanford, Huntington, Hopkins and Crocker, they certainly were not for trump either.
Free markets, free trade, and free people are the goal. They are as unattainable and elusive today as ever. -
All the same and all in the deaths of millions. HTHHHusky said:
They’re a bunch of Nazis, which translates to socialists in Right Winglish.PurpleThrobber said:
Microsoft cockblocked my edit.HHusky said:
True. I am ideologicallyUW_Doog_Bot said:
That's because all of the policies you advocate align with your ideological beliefs. Of course you don't care what label they carry.HHusky said:
Humans respond to incentives. Positive and negative incentives. I'm more interested in good or effective policy than any of the ideological labels.YellowSnow said:
I don't think humans have as much free will as many on the right would like to believe. But we can also agree that humans respond really well to carrots and sticks. The problem with progressive policy is that it's all carrots and no sticks.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Sure, the difference being that real liberalism seeks to protect the small amount of free will individuals may have.YellowSnow said:
The correct answer is probably somewhere between free will and determinism. Neither extreme of the debate works for me.UW_Doog_Bot said:
The philosophy that individuals have no agency or free will is at the heart of progressivism.RaceBannon said:In this thread H argues that junkies have no choice or free will. Like Trump's brother who killed himself
In the other thread H argues that all you have to do is be born lucky and you'll end up a billionaire. Like Trump
As the saying goes, Kunt Logic - is there nothing it can't do?
Progressivism denies agency and seeks to eliminate any that we may possess.practicalretardedchallenged. -
I'm just glad a bank in St. Louis had it's finger on the worlds population economic movement. Maybe we should check the Podunk savings and loans take.
-
Clearly we need to run the caravan of dirt farmers right through the USA to Canada
What was I saying about teaching kids the system is rigged against them?
The USA is the last best hope. The proof is Canada and England wouldn't exist without us -
There's your Nanny-State Big Government Authoritarian tell, right there.HHusky said:
Humans respond to incentives. Positive and negative incentives. I'm more interested in good or effective policy than any of the ideological labels.YellowSnow said:
I don't think humans have as much free will as many on the right would like to believe. But we can also agree that humans respond really well to carrots and sticks. The problem with progressive policy is that it's all carrots and no sticks.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Sure, the difference being that real liberalism seeks to protect the small amount of free will individuals may have.YellowSnow said:
The correct answer is probably somewhere between free will and determinism. Neither extreme of the debate works for me.UW_Doog_Bot said:
The philosophy that individuals have no agency or free will is at the heart of progressivism.RaceBannon said:In this thread H argues that junkies have no choice or free will. Like Trump's brother who killed himself
In the other thread H argues that all you have to do is be born lucky and you'll end up a billionaire. Like Trump
As the saying goes, Kunt Logic - is there nothing it can't do?
Progressivism denies agency and seeks to eliminate any that we may possess.
