@Fluminator

Well, and Russia do exactly the same. I quess RT plays more carefully (by the way, may I ask you where are you from and what Russian media do you consume?). But our inner propaganda is extremly noisy and arrogant. In any case, there are two possibilities 1) always support your government`s opinion because it is your government 2) try to figure out the truth. So I picked the second variant and then faced the next couple of possibilities - 1) Western propaganda is closer to the truth 2) The Russian one is. Well it probably would take writing a book to justify my final conclusion that Western point of view is more valid. In a nutshell, there is no real elevated goals behind Russian policy. Just envy to (very few!) more powerful nations. Our leaders can`t stand the idea that USA is number 1. They would always prefer geopolitical glory to it`s own people freedom and prosperity. Well, I imagine what place the world would be if 200+ countries followed this example and set geopolitical leadership as their supreme goal !.... So, our educated classes are deeply divided, about 50-50. Half (including myself) considers our current stand against West COMPLETELY unnecessary, while other half is very happy and very proud of state`s increased power. Working classes almost entirely support current policy but it is worth noting that their opinion is almost totally shaped by tv propaganda

When I read the Jungle, I learned why Labor Unions exist

@ Yanick

If you want to write another reply that's fine and I will look at it, but I think basically our differences come down to that you see individual property rights as more important than democracy and I think the opposite. And that's pretty abstract and probably hard to talk about in the context of a forum.

To annex a thought from America's Big Tan Brother, I always appreciate the conversation on here, even with the haters and losers. Lol.

@SamWest

it's REALLY not abstract. you're a relativist, i believe in rights.

if you TRULY believe in democracy, then Nazi Germany and Hitler approval ratings in the 1940s were in the 90th percentile, higher than any American president ever. Democracy, the idea of collective will means that the Nazi party is justified.

of course you might say "discrimination is wrong, and evil" but what if everyone VOTES for discrimination? that's the basic split. this isn't some giant philosophical wall to climb, libertarians, conservatives, and MANY liberals believe that a democratic vote cannot override one's basic rights. you should not be put into a gas chamber just because the democratic masses say that you should be.

this idea of objective rights isn't very popular among intellectuals, which is where we see the furthest left ideology, but the philosophy of enlightenment era thinkers agreed that we needed to secure rights that guarantees of life liberty and property.

this idea comes from a fairly basic concept: is there objective purpose to life? this could be yes or no, but from a skeptical viewpoint, the best thing to do is to determine whether or not there is objective purpose, and if so, accomplish it. thus to search for purpose in life, we needed life: a reverse engineering of most religions shows this concept is ancient, that life is sacred.

to search for purpose in life we must have freedom, but our freedom ends when we end up taking away another person's right to search for purpose - after all, if Objective purpose exists, then we must have a right to search for it. this is another basic concept: that liberty is sacred. (except where it infringes on other's liberty)

with our liberties, and our need to secure life, we must be able to survive. our work and effort, as we choose to act, belongs to us. if i create a wheel, then other people are not allowed to take the product of my labor, just as it is immoral to take away liberty: slavery and theft are selfish ideals. thus when we work hard and use our liberty and labor, we create a product that we own and posses: the concept of property appears.

life. liberty. property. property has always been the most contentious of all, because every civilization ever has oppressed some person, and property is often passed down in inheritance. furthermore, we have a scarcity of resources. however, the ideals of freedom and individual rights have benefitted society more than collective control ever has:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/shanedk/sets/72157646459874723/

these are graphs linking economic freedom, to multiple levels of overall prosperity and well being. the empirical evidence has been fairly conclusive for quite a while.

@Yanick

I was really trying to end the argument politely and with good humor before you called me a Nazi.

I'm not even going to dignify that bullshit with a response except to say that it's offensive and stupid to compare people wanting healthcare or social security with the Holocaust. You don't want to pay higher taxes so you're saying I'm a Nazi. Give me a fucking break.

Open a book. Every hideous atrocity throughout history has happened because of an unaccountable elite with too much power, *not* because of the people. The best way to have people defend their own rights is through a system that is truly democratic and limits institutions of hierarchy and control.

I don't believe in private property, that doesn't mean I'm a moral relativist, it means my morals don't line up with yours.

"Economic freedom" doesn't really mean anything, it's not an objective term. I looked at those graphs but I'd have to see the whole study, look at the factors they considered "economic freedom" and how they weighted them in their analysis, and other stuff like that. You sending me charts doesn't really prove anything.

"When these people read Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle" they get a hard-on for all the beautiful freedom."

Ah, yes, of course, it took this statement to realize I'm an anarchist and that light regulations yet "necessary" regulations shouldn't exist.

@TrPardo

In Sinclair's era "light yet necessary" regulations were bitterly opposed by big business as an intrusion on their property rights and freedom. So were the forty hour work week, the minimum wage, and the end of child labor. We now think those things are basic rights but they had to be fought for by militant trade unionists.

@hedin
I'm Canadian so not either American or Russian. I don't follow RT anymore though, probably the closest news source to Russian propaganda I follow is SouthFront. I did follow RT for a bit, but I began to see some more sinister motive behind it in how it covered things. (Much more subtle than western media)
I mainly try to follow independent journalists that seem to have a good track record to compare to the mainstream medias of both countries and I find that the western media is quite often more contradicted, and that Russian media is quite often more accurate. Not always the case though obviously.
One example is I knew an independent Canadian journalist who went to Syria and his findings were definitely closer to Russia's side of the story.

It really depends on the context of the thing being covered though, and neither side is purely innocent or guilty. It's a full time job deciphering real news.

I think it's dangerous for America to paint Russia as the complete bad guys and America as mainly innocent, and I can't help but feel the propaganda is grooming the public for a "righteous" war.

Okay so once again - another webdipper who thinks Bernie Madoff was a victim of big government intrusion.

@SamWest

"I was really trying to end the argument politely and with good humor before you called me a Nazi."

wow. just wow. i NEVER called you a Nazi. I SAID that if you don't believe in rights, and always justify things by a vote, then you'd end up believing the Nazis were morally OK. after all, it was a democratic measure.


"I'm not even going to dignify that bullshit with a response except to say that it's offensive and stupid to compare people wanting healthcare or social security with the Holocaust. You don't want to pay higher taxes so you're saying I'm a Nazi. Give me a fucking break."

I NEVER MENTIONED HEALTHCARE OR SOCIAL SECURITY!!! STOP GETTING OFF POINT!

I said, VERY simply: if you believe democratic vote can override individual rights, than WERE THE NAZIS WRONG?


"Open a book. Every hideous atrocity throughout history has happened because of an unaccountable elite with too much power, *not* because of the people. The best way to have people defend their own rights is through a system that is truly democratic and limits institutions of hierarchy and control."

this is not true at all, history is full of democracies turning tyrannical: Weimar Republic moving to Naziism, Ancient Rome, France on two occasions... and there is also a large record of masses killing ideological dissidents: russia and the bolsheviks, the italian fascist under Mussolini, Pol Pot, Mao, the list goes on and on and on.

this has not always been an unaccountable elite with too much power, as i said before: howdy you explain Hitler? he got elected in and ruled the national socialist party very favorably among germans. Mussolini seized power, but became instantly popular. the idea that the evil elites are controlling everything, really lets governments off the hook, because in history the two major causes for political downfall are Invasion, and Government mismanagement.

Rome, Greece, France, Italy, Germany, Russia, China, the British Empire the governments had abuses of power and were corrupt MULTIPLE TIMES in all of their histories. this is documented fact.


"I don't believe in private property, that doesn't mean I'm a moral relativist, it means my morals don't line up with yours."

now i don't think you're lazy, but this is really stupid. i never said NOT believing in private property made you a moral relativist. I NEVER SAID THAT. i said that thinking Democratic willpower naturally overrides individual rights makes you a moral relativist. if you always change the nature of your country with a democracy, then by definition you have no objective standards of rights.


""Economic freedom" doesn't really mean anything, it's not an objective term."

this is not true. the index of economic freedom is a VERY objectively measurable term. you quantify by rating the severity of regulations and restrictions from the ability to work, produce, consume, and invest, and government law on allowing labor, capital, and goods to move freely, and refrain from coercion or constraint of liberty beyond the extent necessary to protect and maintain liberty itself.

the fact that you're not literate in economic theory is no excuse if we're having a discussion on economics.


"I looked at those graphs but I'd have to see the whole study, look at the factors they considered "economic freedom" and how they weighted them in their analysis, and other stuff like that. You sending me charts doesn't really prove anything."

this wasn't a massive study, it's literally just a correlative look at which countries have the most economic freedom of the masses, compared to other social ideals: life expectancy, income inequality, etc. it's literally just taking 2 datasets: economic freedom, and another variable of social well being, and comparing them side by side.

it's not a great causal link i'll grant you that, but it's a startling correlation that every country that is more economically free, is also more prosperous and advanced and well off.

Furthermore, if you actually click on any of the charts, all the sources will be directly below. sources range form the World Bank to the CIA.gov rankings, and even the United Nations Human Development Report.

these are not backwater organizations, these are some of the most reputable in the world

but you still haven't answered me @SamWest, how do you justify saying the Nazis were wrong?

i know you don't like Nazis. I'm Polish... the Nazis are not my friends. but if a DEMOCRATIC VOTE is to be given precedent over individual rights, then what did the Nazis do wrong?

@Yanik

It's worse, he knows we aren't a democracy but would rather have us be one. What a nightmare that would be. Democracy is just as dangerous as a monarchy, the founding fathers wanted neither for good reason.

"a political philosophy that says it is in favor of human freedom but wants to limit the ability of people to make decisions on how they are governed and how the economy functions is antithetical to freedom"

We kind of already decided how we want to be governed and how we want our economy to function. This was accomplished through a couple of documents called the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. You might have heard of them.

"But you clearly then don't like liberty in any real sense, because you want to limit people's agency."

Quite the opposite. Democracy is a tool that can be used to destroy liberty and even lives. That's why it must be limited and used only in a properly functioning Republic..

"Your argument is again, business owners should be allowed to do whatever they want, run everyone into the ground and people should have no influence in what they do."

Wrong.

@Fluminator

Really I don`t know how to verify media stories about particular events in distant countries. Independent authors might be biased too. For example Wikileaks claims to be very "independent" but surprisingly pays the greatest attention on Western establishment`s dirty business almost completely forgetting its opponents. Also it is clear that it is simply fashionable to be in some kind of romantic opposition against the Neoliberal Order that`s why many so-called independent researchers may lean toward Russain viewpoint consciously or unconsciously. In any case, it is impossible to verify every minor FACT about corruption and violence unless you become a journalist yourself and make your own investigations. But it is surely possible to examine the whole APPROACH proposed by any thinker, party or country. I have already shared my opinion about Russian policy. Of course West has its own flaws and double standarts, but they cannot be compared to ours. And there is no need in investigations journalism, following official narrative is enough. It is simply totally self-contradicting. Just one example: the same year Crimea was taken and referendum decision to leave Ukraine and join Russia was being praised by our media as the greatest manifestation of people`s will etc etc, another law was passed and criminal punishment for any call for secession within Russia was established ! Our authorities do love talking about western double standarts but they will never practice what they preach

Speaking of dangers of war, I can only repeat what I ve already said about our inner propaganda. It, in turn, paints West as bad Russia as good.

I forgive wikileaks because it's an english site. I'm sure most of the dirt on countries like Russia are in a different language. However wikileaks is biased like crazy so everyone has to take that into account.
Fully agreed that independent authors can easily be bought out. Heck if I was independent I'd be foolish to think I wouldn't take bribes if they were high enough lol.

Also, yeah I had some extended family living in Ukraine close to Crimea and they think Putin is satan incarnate.

Thanks for your input though. It's good for me to remember that the west isn't always the sole bad guy.

@Yanick

You're being disingenuous. The Nazis were bad because they were a murderous regime.

It's just bad history to say that Hitler was acting on the will of the people; the Nazis never won 51 percent in a free election, as soon as they took power with a plurality in Parliament they crushed democracy and dissent, threw people who disagreed with them into gas chambers, banned political parties opposing them, executed minority groups and suspended elections. Not exactly a functioning democracy. You never cite your source for Hitler being massively popular in the forties, but sure, people might have said they supported him when there were tanks in the streets. Hitler's rise to power was a small elite taking power violently, not a reflection of democratic will.

The other examples you gave were the same. Robespierre and the Jacobins were a small grouping in the French Revolution that used violence to maximize their influence. Vladimir Lenin took power after *losing* a democratic election to the Socialist Revolutionary Party and the Menscheviks. Ancient Rome excluded many people from voting, you can hardly call it a functioning democracy.

Of course I believe people have individual rights, we probably agree on some of them (free speech, assembly, free press) and don't agree on others (rights of property).

However, I don't believe, like our Founding Father Alexander Hamilton, that "the opulent minority" needs to be protected from "the tyranny of the majority." I think people have the right to live peaceful lives but I don't think they have the right to horde riches while other people starve and suffer. So I think all the "taxation is theft" stuff is piffle. And I'm sorry but comparing that to the Nazis is just dumb.

@Fluminator
thank you too for the conversation !

Libertarians would argue Enron did nothing wrong.
Hedge funds are great.
And bad investment and fake investment comlanies are cool - fair game. Guys like bernie madoff arent criminals. Destroying ppls lives is just part of the system.

There shouldnt be bankruptcy.
There shouldnt be regulations.

And everyone just die off vs monopolies and evil corporations.

"Ancient Rome excluded many people from voting"

"I don't believe, like our Founding Father Alexander Hamilton, that "the opulent minority" needs to be protected from "the tyranny of the majority.""

Pick one

@TrPardo, I was pointing out that both Rome and America had anti-democratic traditions and this is a bad thing. There's no inconsistency.

brain:

I'm a libertarian and believe that fraud and monopolization should be illegal. That covers and contradicts basically everything you just said.

"Libertarians would argue Enron did nothing wrong.
Hedge funds are great.
And bad investment and fake investment comlanies are cool - fair game. Guys like bernie madoff arent criminals. Destroying ppls lives is just part of the system.

There shouldnt be bankruptcy.
There shouldnt be regulations.

And everyone just die off vs monopolies and evil corporations."

Wrong on all accounts.

@SamWest

But where is the dividing line? Having less than 50% + 1 vote is one type of legitimation, 50% + x - another type, maybe 70 % or 99% are another types too ? The true question is: what level of electoral support allows to completely alter existing political and social system (and maybe in Nazi`s way if they are those who possess such support)? If it is possible with certain number of votes, then no comments; if it is impossible, then the whole concept of democracy as a supreme ideal and a source of virtue is useless, because the will of majority appears to be (and it actually is) less important than the individual freedom. So, democracy is just tool yes historically very useful tool, but only when it serves the human rights. Tool, not the source of goodness

You provided good historical examples but there is a bunch of problems anyway. Again, in 1933 Nazis had some kind of majority. Thinking of democracy as an ultimate ideal, you need additionaly prove that their majority wasn`t large enough to legitimate such brutal rule and then somehow calculate the exact amount of votes required for such legitimization.
Then, lets look at elections organised by oppressive regimes (USSR, contemporary China and Russia etc). To explain invalidity of such elections you wiil speak about lack of free speech, imprisonment of political opponents etc. And it is certainly true, but it is all about human rights and individual freedom ! So, majority opinion counts ONLY when individual rights are respected ! Majority can neither alienate individual rights nor even speak when such rights are alienated!
And from the other side, the right to cast vote seeking for electoral victory is only one of many rights that person possess in free society!

For me there is no question which concept is superior

Good stuff Sam West. I may not agree with you, but you express yourself well, and appear to be intelligent with a reasonable understanding of history. It's probably simpler to just ignore the irrational nonsense from Yannick. He is one of a tiny group I've muted.

@JY: "life. liberty. property. property has always been the most contentious of all, because every civilization ever has oppressed some person, and property is often passed down in inheritance. furthermore, we have a scarcity of resources."

Please elaborate on why you think property is the most contentious of those three.

@TrPrado: "I'm a libertarian and believe that fraud and monopolization should be illegal."

So, government regulation then? How large of a monopoly is too large?

@hedin: "But where is the dividing line? Having less than 50% + 1 vote is one type of legitimation, 50% + x - another type, maybe 70 % or 99% are another types too ?"

In some countries you can get 3 million fewer votes than your rival and claim a political mandate.

@SamWest

they were elected through parliamentary procedure, which is a facet of the democracy Britain currently has. but because you seem to have done little research on this: no, Hitler was quite well liked. Not at first, but he gave the economy a massive boost by destroying the currency and printing new ones, and even gained Time's man of the year in 1938.

and as for not sourcing: i do apologize for the fact that you don't have google and couldn't take 5 seconds to look this up

http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/big/0819.html

also, i didn't say Robespierre or the Jacobins: they were reacting to a monarchy. STOP YOUR STRAWMAN. i said FRANCE. France failed as a democracy twice, before all this once by a monarchial government mismanaging things and causing uproar (government failure), and by Napoleon's eventual war mongering that led to an implosion after extreme expansions. the times Democracy failed were with the Popular front after WWI and in Vichy France in WWII

you seem to misunderstand what i'm saying: government and invasion are the two ways these countries fail. democracies are NOT immune.

now you've said several times it's always a few wealthy "elite" tearing things apart... if by "elite" you mean BIG GOVERNMENT then YES! YES YES YES embrace the libertarian in you. if you mean a few wealthy private individuals... there's less evidence for that.

i'm not saying all these places are pure democracies... in fact we haven't seen THAT since ancient greece. i'm simply saying your model of wealthy elites causing all the problems is only true if those elites are members of government.


"However, I don't believe, like our Founding Father Alexander Hamilton, that "the opulent minority" needs to be protected from "the tyranny of the majority.""

not just him, all of them. ALL of the founding fathers.


"I think people have the right to live peaceful lives but I don't think they have the right to horde riches while other people starve and suffer."

this is a typical liberal claim, that rich "hoard" money (not horde, think mongols with horde). they put their money in banks. if you think that giving banks your money is "hoarding" then you don't understand fractional reserve banking. the more money you give to banks, the more money they can loan out, and allow for investment. BUT i actually DISLIKE the FED, so if you want to hop on board another libertarian ideal there: we'd love to have you.

furthermore, people are starving and suffering? well not as much in the USA. our rates have been getting better with time

http://www.worldhunger.org/hunger-in-america-2016-united-states-hunger-poverty-facts/

but... let's look at the agricultural industry. sure it's producing MASSIVE amounts of food at low price, so much so that our POOR have an OBESITY crisis, but that's ver much a 1st world problem. but what about food waste? well, about 40% off food in the USA is never eaten. yup. how does this happen? price ceilings by the government, buying up extra supplies and paying farmers not to produce. all STILL regulations that the USA has in place.

this waste is allowed to happen, because the agricultural industry has no incentive NOT to waste, and the government "Buying surpluses" makes it more profitable to let food rot in fields or landfills, than try to sell it (which would lower prices)

of course why not give it all to poor people? answer: the government doesn't subsidize for that. welcome to Libertarian hell: the government creates waste, and when presented with a chance to help out STILL IS SO WASTEFUL


"So I think all the "taxation is theft" stuff is piffle."

when did i say that? once. quote me once. OR MAYBE ACTUALLY ADDRESS MY GODDAMN ARGUMENTS. this has been a very frustrating conversation... i'm fine with taxation in moderation and primarily on local levels.

the ideals the constitution wanted: the tenth amendment:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

was the idea of the subsidiarity, but nowadays we're BACKWARDS. people can name the President, but most don't know their own Governor!!! we're adding more and more levels than ever of bureaucracy to government, and making us less and less in control of our own ability for success. libertarians see this as dangerous, and they're also upset that this expansion of federal power is made possible by taking OUR money! this is not how the constitution was supposed to work, but scarily enough: we're FUNDING the destruction of our founding document! christ...


"And I'm sorry but comparing that to the Nazis is just dumb."


my god... you still don't understand. let's ignore Nazis... and say it's something else.

there's group A that's a majority and group B that's a minority. these groups are a part of a society.

1. group A votes to confiscate all people's property for redistribution for the social good
2. group A votes to confiscate the right to free speech and press for the social good
3. group A votes to kill political dissidents for the social good.

people almost always look at part 3 and reject it. only the fringe accepts this right now.

people are coming around to part 2 on the radical left. preventing press from safe spaces on public campuses

http://time.com/4530197/college-free-speech-zone/

to rioting when speakers try to come to campus, forcing them off

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2017/04/27/theres-no-speech-planned-but-protesters-are-converging-on-berkeley-today/?utm_term=.3f53cceef042


but people often support proposition 1. en masse recently it seems.

and therein lies the problem with pure democracy. in a pure democracy, all 3 propositions are up for public decision. NO limitations. if you allow for one to be accepted, there's no ideological standpoint that can adequately defend the other two. if YOU say the seizure of property purely for redistributive sake, then i can say that for the social good we must also prevent people trying to protest our democratic choice.

in our constitutional republic, we have natural limitations that protect life liberty and property. you are not allowed to vote on these. this idea has been degraded over the last century... and even longer. there's also a culture that has emerged that seems to hate the successful.

if you believe the poor have rights whereas the rich have none, you are a socialist. if you believe the rich have rights whereas the poor have none, you are a slaver

if you believe: "that all men are created , that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." then you are an American.

many point to the pursuit of happiness being change with property, but few are willing to accept that Locke himself had this to say in "Concerning Human Understanding" about the pursuit of happiness, and how Jefferson saw the pursuit of happiness much more effective in individual rights than property:

"The necessity of pursuing happiness is the foundation of liberty. As therefore the highest perfection of intellectual nature lies in a careful and constant pursuit of true and solid happiness; so the care of ourselves, that we mistake not imaginary for real happiness, is the necessary foundation of our liberty. The stronger ties we have to an unalterable pursuit of happiness in general, which is our greatest good, and which, as such, our desires always follow, the more are we free from any necessary determination of our will to any particular action, and from a necessary compliance with our desire, set upon any particular, and then appearing preferable good, till we have duly examined whether it has a tendency to, or be inconsistent with, our real happiness: and therefore, till we are as much informed upon this inquiry as the weight of the matter, and the nature of the case demands, we are, by the necessity of preferring and pursuing true happiness as our greatest good, obliged to suspend the satisfaction of our desires in particular cases."

there was never any intention to allow for social masses to take the product of one's labor away from them. this interpretation by the modern left is entirely flawed.

America is not here for your socialist desires, it was made to be free. free of corporatists in government, free of politicized corruption in unions, free of the arrogant socialists.


our constitution has been bastardized enough, if socialists truly believe they are being oppressed and rights stripped, there is an American precedent to rebel. but that's the thing about socialism, even Marx understood mass redistribution doesn't create wealth, this is why Marx said in his Communist Manifesto that we must wait until a nation is industrialized, and THEN seize the factors of production. i've read Marx's works, and they fundamentally ignore progress into the future as important, and focus on the current struggles in a blinded fashion.

aleksandr solzhenitsyn, a man with whom i do not share perfectly equal views, wrote an intellectual critique of Marxism and it's ideals in The Gulag Archipelago. I read it 2 years back, and never before have i seen a more well laid out case for the absolute failure of Marxism. if more people read this book, socialism would have died out long ago.

https://archive.org/stream/TheGulagArchipelago-Threevolumes/The-Gulag-Archipelago__vol1__I-II__Solzhenitsyn#page/n2/mode/1up


in case you want to learn.

@Jeff Kuta

"@JY: "life. liberty. property. property has always been the most contentious of all, because every civilization ever has oppressed some person, and property is often passed down in inheritance. furthermore, we have a scarcity of resources."

Please elaborate on why you think property is the most contentious of those three."

um... i just did? scarcity of resources, and the constant challenging of inheritance and family structure. i mean socialists by and large enjoy right to life and liberty, but ENTIRELY disregard right to property. given the socialism if more favorable than capitalism among youths

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/rampage/wp/2016/02/05/millennials-have-a-higher-opinion-of-socialism-than-of-capitalism/?utm_term=.834dce14b861

i cam to the conclusion there's more argument on right to property... do you disagree? most people argue on television and in debates about taxes and right to own material wealth... not many people are saying you have no right to live, or no right to basic liberties (all though free speech has been under attack recently)


"@TrPrado: "I'm a libertarian and believe that fraud and monopolization should be illegal.

So, government regulation then? How large of a monopoly is too large?"


Jeff... first of all a monopoly is when one company controls the supply of an industry. size doesn't actually matter: the lack thereof competition matters.

secondly, monopolies are most commonly created by government regulation and law. i have a challenge going with any liberal: show me a monopoly that was created, among a reproducible resource (not education or the hope diamond) or a certain bit of land, that did not have government interference.

nobody has yet to win my challenge. monopolies always go hand in hand with government influence. even the most efficient firms that are so large and create such cheap great products will always have rivals on a very small level, in a free market. government prevents competition.


"@hedin: "But where is the dividing line? Having less than 50% + 1 vote is one type of legitimation, 50% + x - another type, maybe 70 % or 99% are another types too ?"

In some countries you can get 3 million fewer votes than your rival and claim a political mandate."

sigh. we're not a democracy: get over it. i know you silly liberals don't understand how this country was founded, and that most of our founding fathers HATED the idea of a pure democracy, from Jefferson, Hamilton, Adams, Franklin... but i'm sure some shitposter on the internet knows better.

so how about math?

5 states population:
A. 1
B. 10
C. 100
D. 1000
E. 10000
total: 11111 population

Red: (60%B)+(60%C)+(40%D)+(40%E)+(100%A)
Blue: (40%B)+(40%C)+(60%D)+(60%E)

electoral: 3:2 Red Wins

1+6+60+400+4000=4467
4+40+600+6000=6644

popular: 40.2% / 59.8% Blue wins

uh oh, the popular vote has been cheated... except that's only if the people are directly represented by the federal government.

imagine this is all about air conditioning. people who vote Red want a nice warm 80 degrees, while people who vote Blue want a chill cool 60 degrees.

If you want the federal government to control the temperature and make it the same for ALL states, then a popular vote would get the best temperature for the most people, 6644

but, if you want each state to control its own temperature, then 6667 people get what they want, a better overall tally

now i’ve use weird number ratios, but the principle is pretty much the same. our republic helps MORE people.

we live in a federal system, so we do in fact want the federal government to control stuff, namely, interactions between the states. if this were a pure democracy, the people wanting 80 degrees in their states couldn’t have it if the other states started stealing their magical runestones of Iracachio, so to to prevent such mob rule, the federal government must maintain balance.

the metaphor has officially gotten away from me, but we shouldn’t let less widely accepted views of the world be destroyed by more widely accepted ones, if both systems work, and don’t infringe upon the basic tenants of life liberty and property. This is why we add both house reps AND senators into the equation for the # of electors. We want to hear the people, yes, but we also want to hear the states.

thus we get a balance of both, their is a disproportionate population:elector ratio for just this reason.

furthermore, i do personally support states splitting electoral votes: if they so choose to do so.

Now if you believe in one centralized system and an utter destruction of state’s rights, then that’s another conversation. However, there is a coherent rationale to the Electoral college.

otherwise, the states must be represented as individual entities with unique population interests too

a mathematical law concerning averages demands that the smaller the groups you divide a larger heterogeneous sum into, will be more precisely representative than the overall whole. the division of representation HELPS the american populous

@Jeff Kuta

It doesn`t matter. Trump is a very bad choice whether he has 3 mln disadvantage or 30 mln advantage or anything