The personal responsibility comes in to effect only at deciding to have the first drink. Once you have alcohol in your system, your judgment has been chemically impaired so you are under the influence of another substance, yes that gives you an excuse on the whole personal responsibility thing.

Its ironic that the government allows you to drink these substances then holds you responsible for what you do under their influence. Its not really a shame that we don't have a nanny state to say you can't drink this stuff its just a shame that people like you say its their own fault for falling in love and hooking up while under the influence.

You have to be careful when you talk about personal responsibility and alcohol because one immediately begins to chip away at the other and those who are not mentally strong are set up to stumble.

8/18/2011 10:26:00 PM

Then they stumble and the world punishes them. life is often unfair. Doesn't mean we should do anything about it. If we as society removed the punishments for allowing yourself to get into such circumstances, then more purple would do it. Incentives do matter.

8/19/2011 12:06:28 AM

You are responsible for the consequences of your actions. You know the risks when you drink alcohol, and while drunkenness is an excuse, it is only an excuse. It does not make you any less liable for the harm you cause.

8/19/2011 12:19:02 AM

I assume you never ever drink

[Edited on August 19, 2011 at 12:31 AM. Reason : why do you think the government makes any drug illegal?]

8/19/2011 12:30:05 AM

Quote :

"why do you think the government makes any drug illegal?"

financial profit for favored class

8/19/2011 1:13:33 AM

Quote :

"I assume you never ever drink"

I do drink, but not in a way that puts others at risk. Everyone is different. Some people handle alcohol differently than others, but people have to use self control. If they don't, and they harm someone else or cause damage, they have to deal with the consequences.

Drugs are illegal for a variety of reasons, only one of which is that they impair judgment. Alcohol's effects are much worse than marijuana in virtually every single way, yet alcohol is legal.

8/19/2011 1:23:40 AM

Quote :

"I assume you never ever drink"

So you are against punishment because you believe yourself will one day suffer the punishment. Scary. You seem to expect you are going to kill someone in the future, drunk driving I suspect, and the biggest worry to you is what the rest of us are going to do to you afterwards, not that you just killed a human being.

Well, if that is the case, then we have exhibit A for why bad behavior, even while drunk, should be punished. Fear of punishment is the only thing keeping you from drinking more.

8/19/2011 8:17:52 AM

Quote :

"^ Not at all. European income disparity (calculated EU wide) was comparable to American (calculated US wide). The people of eastern Europe really push down the bottom of income disparity while Switzerland and Monaco really push up the top. Kinda how rural counties and ethnic minorities push down the bottom and Beverly Hills increases the top."

Comparing america to Europe's economy as a whole is stupid. You can't draw any conclusions because the EU is not a nation; it does not have a singular economic structure and government.

8/19/2011 9:30:13 AM

Ignorance of history is not a lack of history. The European common market is decades old. Even so, the EU is a nation and it does "have a singular economic structure and government."

To say the European Union is not a singular state because its lower levels of government are bigger is to suggest the United States was not a singular state until well into the 20th century.

[Edited on August 19, 2011 at 9:35 AM. Reason : .,.]

8/19/2011 9:35:37 AM

Europe is a god-damned continent, not a nation

you obtuse ass

8/19/2011 10:08:05 AM

The European Union, or EU, is not a continent, you obtuse ass.

8/19/2011 10:41:35 AM

interesting take by John Stewart on the Class War

http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/thu-august-18-2011-anne-hathaway

8/19/2011 1:37:12 PM

^I came here to post the same thing.

It was one of the more awesome things they've done in a while. Reminded me why I always watch!

8/19/2011 2:09:33 PM

^^99% of poor people own refrigerators! Bullshit, if you ask me. You're poor, you eat what you find in the dumpsters!

8/19/2011 3:55:55 PM

^^^
Awesome.

I particularly enjoyed The Poor's Free Ride Is Over.

8/19/2011 7:35:37 PM

Quote :

"The reduction in the number of tax brackets was, of course, a deliberate attempt to entangle the interests of people who normally have no political unity whatsoever. Your story is an example of the sort of amazing unity it can grant your friend's dad (and the people who know him, apparently) with the ultra-rich."

Boom, problem identified. It really is amazing, though, the ability of the crazy rich to get the upper middle class to feverishly support a system that is actively fucking them in the ass. And the ability to get some in the lower middle class to support an economic strategy that goes directly against their own self interests with tired "bootstrap" arguments and appeals to cultural and racial phobias is just icing on the cake.

You gotta hand it to the rich; when it comes to protecting their wealth, they are some crafty sons-of-bitches. Of course we'll never see subsidized higher education in the US, because an empowered middle-class would create a larger voting block that wouldn't readily volunteer to bend over for the long dick of trickle-down economics.

8/19/2011 8:02:17 PM

Quote :

"Of course we'll never see subsidized higher education in the US"

ummm, are you fucking ignorant? What the hell do you think federally SUBSIDIZED student loans are?

8/19/2011 8:50:43 PM

^i was referring to the "free higher education" conversation that was had in the last page of this thread, bubbles. "subsidized loans" is not the same as a subsidized education. the loan (or rather, the interest of the loan) is subsidized, but the student is still required to pay-back the loan.

an example of a publicly subsidized education would be the primary, middle, and high school that you went to. lotta fuckin' good that did, though.

[Edited on August 19, 2011 at 9:16 PM. Reason : ]

8/19/2011 9:04:27 PM

“I dream of a world where none will be so poor that they have nothing to give and none will be so rich that they have nothing to receive.” - Pope John Paul II

8/19/2011 9:10:02 PM

i dream of a world where stupid pie in the sky quotes weren't quoted as if they were somehow meaningful in any way, shape, or form

^^ you do realize that one of the reasons to subsidize education is to make it worthless, right?

[Edited on August 19, 2011 at 9:16 PM. Reason : ]

8/19/2011 9:16:20 PM

dude, pipe down. you scanned the post and latched on to a key word to attack (per usual) and completely missed the main idea of the post. now having been caught with your pants down, you're trying to convince the world that pants don't exist.

i assure you that subsidizing education is not a part of a mass conspiracy to devalue education. unless you want to argue that elementary schools, middle schools, high schools, public libraries are all worthless as well. actually, it wouldn't surprise me if you tried to put your stake in the ground on that claim. i'm actually looking forward to watching you try. i'm sure you'll try using basic supply and demand principles, and then destroyer will come in here and try back you up using his predictable libertarian ethos.

come to think of it, it should be fun, let's go down that road.

8/19/2011 9:30:02 PM

Quote :

"now having been caught with your pants down, you're trying to convince the world that pants don't exist."

hahaha this is the best description of aaronburro

8/19/2011 9:33:46 PM

Quote :

"i assure you that subsidizing education is not a part of a mass conspiracy to devalue education."

then you have been properly fooled. what better way to control the masses than to control education and dumb it down enough to where only the people who can afford to opt out can get a quality education.

8/19/2011 10:09:47 PM

do tell

8/20/2011 3:18:20 AM

Quote :

"then you have been properly fooled. what better way to control the masses than to control education and dumb it down enough to where only the people who can afford to opt out can get a quality education."

I agree, abolish private schools so that every taxpayer has an interest in improving public education.

8/22/2011 12:53:57 PM

Quote :

"what better way to control the masses than to control education and dumb it down enough to where only the people who can afford to opt out can get a quality education."

If the left controls so many of the levers of society, they must be the Keystone Cops of conspiracy, because we still keep producing a populace that worships dat $$$.

8/22/2011 12:58:11 PM

Quote :

"an example of a publicly subsidized education would be the primary, middle, and high school that you went to. lotta fuckin' good that did, though."

Those are great examples of subsidized education. I'll give you some time to figure out how you are making an effective argument against yourself.

[Edited on August 22, 2011 at 1:09 PM. Reason : ]

8/22/2011 1:09:18 PM

I believe that the world should be built for strong individuals like me. No way am I a loser that needs "handouts".

8/22/2011 1:14:09 PM

Our primary and secondary education in this country is appalling. What point do you think you're making?

8/22/2011 1:16:47 PM

Lmao let's hear the libertarian solution to education that doesn't further fuck over people who aren't breaded up like a chicken wing

8/22/2011 1:22:00 PM

You socialists are the worst.

"HEY GUYS, CORPORATIONS HAVE TAKEN OVER THE GOVERNMENT. WE HAVE STATE CAPITALISM AND THE RICH OWNERS RUN EVERYTHING. SO, LET'S HAVE STATE-RUN PUBLIC EDUCATION."

"Don't you think that the state (which is working in cooperation with the rich capital owners) might have a vested interest in keeping the people (working class) stupid? Don't you think they might try to keep people complacent, rather than actually enable them to think critically about the role of their government?"

"NO, THE STATE WILL DO THE RIGHT THING AND TEACH THE RIGHT THINGS, BECAUSE WE'LL HAVE THE RIGHT PEOPLE IN OFFICE."

8/22/2011 1:29:11 PM

Comon destroyer, tell me your brilliant plan for educating people without money that doesn't involve public intervention.

8/22/2011 1:37:05 PM

I can play that game too

NO EDUCATION AT ALL IS BETTER THAN STATE EDUCATION! IF THEY CANT AFFORD A SCHOOL THEY CAN JUST MOVE TO A PLACE WITH CHEAPER SCHOOLS THE MARKET SOLVES EVERYTHING BWAHAHAH

[Edited on August 22, 2011 at 1:46 PM. Reason : .]

8/22/2011 1:37:43 PM

It's like you're trying to plug big government and big business into the capitalist variable of the Marxist equation, and the workers are somehow augmented by a severely deflated monetary supply. IDGI.

It's like you were a Marxist, but then you decided you really liked Ron Paul because you're also interested in anarchism, and somehow you shoehorned the gold standard in there. Wouldn't it just make more sense to advocate for abolition of the wage system entirely, in the name of freedom?

[Edited on August 22, 2011 at 1:41 PM. Reason : x]

8/22/2011 1:40:24 PM

Quote :

"Comon destroyer, tell me your brilliant plan for educating people without money that doesn't involve public intervention."

It's not public intervention, it's state intervention. The state, that has been hijacked by corporations, is in charge of developing curriculum. You don't get to say we have a capitalist economy on one hand, and then say that it's fine to have the same capitalists running education. They're going to make sure that people are never educated enough to realize that they're being had. You should be advocating a publicly-run education system that exists outside of the state capitalist system.

Why am I having educate you on this?

Quote :

"NO EDUCATION AT ALL IS BETTER THAN STATE EDUCATION! IF THEY CANT AFFORD A SCHOOL THEY CAN JUST MOVE TO A PLACE WITH CHEAPER SCHOOLS THE MARKET SOLVES EVERYTHING BWAHAHAH"

The public education system is antiquated. We use the same model we've used for decades and wonder why we get shitty results. It's been shown that kids with very limited resources are able to learn advanced topics using educational software. A good example can be found here: http://www.khanacademy.org/

The old brick and mortar K-12 education model has to go. Technology and the internet should have made education much more effective and much cheaper, but we're not allowing that to happen because we're clinging to old teaching techniques.

Quote :

"It's like you were a Marxist, but then you decided you really liked Ron Paul because you're also interested in anarchism, and somehow you shoehorned the gold standard in there. Wouldn't it just make more sense to advocate for abolition of the wage system entirely, in the name of freedom?"

You get more clueless all the time, man. Abolishing the wage system is the equivalent of abolishing the trade of goods. Monetary systems are just advanced bartering systems. In the end, people produce goods/services, and they want goods/services in exchange. That's not something you can effectively abolish.

8/22/2011 2:16:43 PM

Quote :

"It's not public intervention, it's state intervention. The state, that has been hijacked by corporations, is in charge of developing curriculum."

The state has always been beholden to the interests of the wealthy. It's not a new development, it was like this on day 1 in 1776. Corporations have nothing to do with it, that's just a red herring libertarians focus on so they don't have to consider the possibility that Capitalism is not ultimately compatible with Democracy.

Quote :

" You don't get to say we have a capitalist economy on one hand, and then say that it's fine to have the same capitalists running education."

I think you're being purposely obtuse about this. Because we are Capitalist, wealth is pooled in a few individuals as well as the State. Because of this, you can't really have widespread education AT ALL unless either Capitalists directly help or indirectly do through the State. It's a "take what you can get" situation. I'd rather have every kid in America know his/her times tables and be indoctrinated with Capitalist propaganda than have them know nothing at all.

Quote :

"They're going to make sure that people are never educated enough to realize that they're being had."

Blah blah you can say this about any education system. Even a computer based one, I can make similarly vague accusations against programmers.

Quote :

" You should be advocating a publicly-run education system that exists outside of the state capitalist system."

Such as?

8/22/2011 2:22:12 PM

Quote :

"that's just a red herring libertarians focus on so they don't have to consider the possibility that Capitalism is not ultimately compatible with Democracy."

It is worse than that. Without capitalism, which allows competition for resources, there can be no democracy, which allows competition for ideas. It is meaningless to be able to run for the opposition when all the means of communication are controlled by the ruling party.

8/22/2011 2:27:07 PM

Quote :

"The state has always been beholden to the interests of the wealthy. It's not a new development, it was like this on day 1 in 1776. Corporations have nothing to do with it, that's just a red herring libertarians focus on so they don't have to consider the possibility that Capitalism is not ultimately compatible with Democracy."

How do corporations have nothing to do with it? Corporate status is, by definition, a special privilege granted by government. It says that they are only liable for some damages they cause, not all of them. If you or I cause harm, we're responsible for all damages we cause.

Free market capitalism is not compatible with democracy. Democracy is mob rule. Free markets mean that all individuals are free. Democracy means that freedom can be taken away with 51% of the vote.

Quote :

"I think you're being purposely obtuse about this. Because we are Capitalist, wealth is pooled in a few individuals as well as the State. Because of this, you can't really have widespread education AT ALL unless either Capitalists directly help or indirectly do through the State. It's a "take what you can get" situation. I'd rather have every kid in America know his/her times tables and be indoctrinated with Capitalist propaganda than have them know nothing at all."

You've created a false dilemma where we either have state capitalist run education, or no education at all. The existence of Wikipedia shows that we can have education without central planning or even robust profit. Be a little more open-minded.

Quote :

"Blah blah you can say this about any education system. Even a computer based one, I can make similarly vague accusations against programmers. "

I can say this about any state-run education system, yes. If individuals are able to choose from a variety of options, they will find out through trial and error which systems are most effective.

Quote :

"Such as?"

http://www.khanacademy.org/ was just one example. If people abandoned their faith in the savior state, you'd see consumer-driven education explode.

8/22/2011 2:31:09 PM

Quote :

"It is worse than that. Without capitalism, which allows competition for resources, there can be no democracy, which allows competition for ideas."

Capitalism taints Democracy because by definition your amount of power and influence is a direct consequence of your wealth. It's a plutocratic economic system, as such fundamentally at odds with Democracy.

Quote :

" It is meaningless to be able to run for the opposition when all the means of communication are controlled by the ruling party."

I'm not sure what's worse here, the assumption that Socialism = Centralized State Owned Media Only, or the complete failure to understand that right now in America every single media outlet is owned by Capitalists who wouldn't dare support an agenda or candidate more than 2 steps to the left of center-right.

8/22/2011 2:35:14 PM

Quote :

"How do corporations have nothing to do with it? Corporate status is, by definition, a special privilege granted by government. It says that they are only liable for some damages they cause, not all of them. If you or I cause harm, we're responsible for all damages we cause."

Corporations are a convenience for the rich. Do you really think without limited liability that they'd go to jail for crimes? That they wouldn't be able to control politics? I mean really, are you really naive enough to think that the disproportionate influence wealth has on politics is as new as Corporate personhood?

Quote :

"Free market capitalism is not compatible with democracy. Democracy is mob rule. Free markets mean that all individuals are free. Democracy means that freedom can be taken away with 51% of the vote."

We don't have to play that game, pretend I said Constitutional Republic or whatever you want. Capitalism is rule by plantation owners, plain and simple, except slaves have to compete for the jobs.

Quote :

" You've created a false dilemma where we either have state capitalist run education, or no education at all. The existence of Wikipedia shows that we can have education without central planning or even robust profit. Be a little more open-minded. http://www.khanacademy.org/ was just one example. If people abandoned their faith in the savior state, you'd see consumer-driven education explode."

So how do you guarantee access to these systems? Does the state provide internet access?

Quote :

" I can say this about any state-run education system, yes. If individuals are able to choose from a variety of options, they will find out through trial and error which systems are most effective."

That's the thing, all individuals aren't free to choose from a variety of options in a Capitalist economy. Their options are limited to their means. You're debating the means of delivering an education, but presenting that as a means of providing it.

[Edited on August 22, 2011 at 2:41 PM. Reason : .]

8/22/2011 2:38:53 PM

Quote :

"I'm not sure what's worse here, the assumption that Socialism = Centralized State Owned Media Only"

Well, if I am right that worker coops suffer from a firm continuance problem, which ultimately results in widespread monopoly, then yes, even worker coops means central owned media only.

That said, the word 'Socialism' which defines as "state owned industry" means by definition Centralized State Owned Media. Unless you are suggesting one country can have more than one national government?

Quote :

"complete failure to understand that right now in America every single media outlet is owned by Capitalists who wouldn't dare support an agenda or candidate more than 2 steps to the left of center-right."

So get some like minded individuals together and start your own media company. As this is mostly a capitalist country, no one has the right to stop you.

[Edited on August 22, 2011 at 2:42 PM. Reason : .,.]

8/22/2011 2:41:10 PM

Quote :

"That said, the word 'Socialism' which defines as "state owned industry""

Well, no, it means worker-owned industry. Centralized State control is one possible incarnation, there are others. This has been explained to you dozens of times but you continue to rail against your Stalinist strawman.

Quote :

"means by definition Centralized State Owned Media. "

Even if Socialism = State owns all, does not mean the State controls the content. Consider education in the US, where the Federal government does a fair deal of funding but the vast majority of curriculum decisions are made by local schoolboards and state governments. Likewise, most idealistic Socialists will agree that the people with the most control over any firm should be the ones actually working in it.

Quote :

"Unless you are suggesting one country can have more than one national government"

I'm suggesting it's possible to have a centralized seat of power that isn't a dictatorship. If you have a council of representatives who are elected from a diverse set of lower level councils of workers, they're not going to vote against their own press freedoms. Get it out of your dense skull that Socialism does not equal Stalinism, please. Do you really get satisfaction out of fighting invisible enemies, constantly mischaracterizing your opposition?

Quote :

"So get some like minded individuals together and start your own media company. As this is mostly a capitalist country, no one has the right to stop you."

Yes, then I'll form a cable company to carry the station, great idea. I'll have a fun time competing with more Capitalistic media companies, too. They'll certainly have far less scruples when it comes to underpaying workers and cutting costs to increase profit by any means necessary. This is another reason so many coops fail, they have to compete against businesses that play by a smaller rulebook of ethics. No fucking duh a local gardening co-op is going to lose to Big Agro or Monsanto.

[Edited on August 22, 2011 at 2:51 PM. Reason : .]

8/22/2011 2:49:08 PM

Quote :

"Do you really think without limited liability that they'd go to jail for crimes? That they wouldn't be able to control politics? I mean really, are you really naive enough to think that the disproportionate influence wealth has on politics is as new as Corporate personhood?"

No, but their influence could be diminished if the people were made to care. As it stands now, even you refuse to admit that the Federal Reserve is doing us a great disservice right now. You insist that we need that institution to help the people - never mind the fact that the money goes directly to the ultra-rich that you claim to despise.

Quote :

"So how do you guarantee access to these systems? Does the state provide internet access?"

No one guarantees anything. If you see a service that the community needs but lacks, you work towards it. You don't put a gun to the head of someone in North Carolina so that you can build a school in Texas.

That's one of the great problems with mainstream political thought. It emphasizes top down solutions where a central planner decides what everyone in the country should have, then pools resources together and tries to make that a reality. In doing so, we've neglected the role of community - community should be one of the most basic building blocks of our society. When power is taken away from communities and placed in the hands of bureaucrats and politicians, the outcome is predictable.

That's one reason that these European countries (especially Scandinavian) are better off than us - they're smaller. That means the government is closer to the people.

8/22/2011 2:49:46 PM

Quote :

"No, but their influence could be diminished if the people were made to care. As it stands now, even you refuse to admit that the Federal Reserve is doing us a great disservice right now. You insist that we need that institution to help the people - never mind the fact that the money goes directly to the ultra-rich that you claim to despise."

No, their influence wont be diminished without a strong public apparatus that deprives them of exorbitant wealth. You're living in a dream world if you think simply increasing the nominal liability of shareholders will make any difference in the rich's influence on politics. They were running shit long before corporations were declared persons, in fact in 1776 they set up their own fucking country.

Also, the Federal Reserve is a minor detail, abolishing it or whatever simple minded solution you have wont change the primary vehicle of repression. Capitalism drives wealth upwards, the Fed's and the role of Corporate personhood are conveniences, not necessities, to that purpose.

Quote :

"No one guarantees anything. If you see a service that the community needs but lacks, you work towards it. You don't put a gun to the head of someone in North Carolina so that you can build a school in Texas."

Right. They will just use the money they have to build a schoo...oh wait. Okay, they'll first get an education so they can make money by going to schoo... Shit....

Yeah, once again, libertarian has a great plan for replacing a social program with a market based one and has absolutely nothing to offer the poor except "Work harder!"

Quote :

"That's one of the great problems with mainstream political thought. It emphasizes top down solutions where a central planner decides what everyone in the country should have, then pools resources together and tries to make that a reality. In doing so, we've neglected the role of community - community should be one of the most basic building blocks of our society. When power is taken away from communities and placed in the hands of bureaucrats and politicians, the outcome is predictable."

Don't even pretend you give a rats ass about communities. You'd take away the only schools they have if you had the chance. The only communities you could be bothered to care about are the gated ones.

Quote :

"That's one reason that these European countries (especially Scandinavian) are better off than us - they're smaller. That means the government is closer to the people."

Right, it has nothing to do with their vast social safety nets, robust public education and healthcare, strong collective bargaining rights, and host of other policies that would make a libertarian like you puke. Instead all you have to praise them with is little vague, unfalsifiable populist remarks like this one.

8/22/2011 2:57:59 PM

Quote :

"I'm suggesting it's possible to have a centralized seat of power that isn't a dictatorship. If you have a council of representatives who are elected from a diverse set of lower level councils of workers, they're not going to vote against their own press freedoms. Get it out of your dense skull that Socialism does not equal Stalinism, please."

Yes, political communism. There have been books written about the insider/outsider dynamics of councils, Lenin, Stalin, and Mao built a government on top of its failings. The problem with such organization is authority flows down while votes flow up. Visibly voting against those that run your life is not a good idea, as lower council members quickly learn. Even secret ballots are no fix, as the most important decisions are over what ideas to even bring to a vote. While such a system is certainly preferable to dictatorship as it allow society to occasionally throw the bums out at widespread personal expense, it is monstrously dictatorial compared to even rigged at-large systems.

8/22/2011 3:35:57 PM

So now you're opposed to any form of representative government? As well as direct democracy? Just to clear things up...are you just a straight-up fascist? I ask because it seems to me that you have no faith whatsoever in anything remotely democratic, and you come down on the side of business on nearly every issue.

[Edited on August 22, 2011 at 4:02 PM. Reason : .]

8/22/2011 3:51:44 PM

The whole gun image is really brilliant rhetoric on your part. Everything's always "at gunpoint". People pay taxes "at gunpoint". You are providing people welfare "at gunpoint". I mean, I guess in order to avoid that stuff, you'd have to opt out of the social contract.

The social contract is "at gunpoint". Who made me pay for your jury trial?

8/22/2011 3:53:19 PM

Quote :

"better off than us - they're smaller. That means the government is closer to the people"

There are lots of countries smaller with the government closer to the people.

8/22/2011 3:58:26 PM

Quote :

"So now you're opposed to any form of representative government?"

Because I find communism to be dictatorial that means I am against representative government? At-large systems (as found in the industrialized world) are fine with me when coupled with strong constitutions.

8/22/2011 4:14:38 PM

Quote :

"Don't even pretend you give a rats ass about communities. You'd take away the only schools they have if you had the chance. The only communities you could be bothered to care about are the gated ones."

ahhh, class warfare. I love it.

Quote :

"Right, it has nothing to do with their vast social safety nets, robust public education and healthcare, strong collective bargaining rights, and host of other policies that would make a libertarian like you puke."

Actually, it would be because they can spend a vast majority of their tax dollars on things other than military protection. They've also got a completely different culture than we do, which affects the situation as well. But, yes, please keep thinking that vast entitlement systems which are bound to break most normal countries actually are a good thing

[Edited on August 23, 2011 at 12:32 AM. Reason : ]

8/23/2011 12:29:20 AM