Ask a Conservative Anything: Part 1, Rage Welcome - Page 6
Blogs > SaintBadger |
Game
3191 Posts
| ||
jeeeeohn
United States1343 Posts
. . .Show up. This more than anything might actually convince me to go vote. I'm of the belief that American politics and the subjects it deals with are too arcane to penetrate by the average person. It takes education, and that education isn't being made readily available by either the media or our schools. But, maybe I'll go vote. Thanks for the response, hope you get some sleep! :0 | ||
Delwack
123 Posts
With this in mind, I do take issue with part of your stance in one of your response to me, let me explain why. On April 27 2012 02:20 SaintBadger wrote: I don't know enough about the conflict with the DMCA and fair use to make an educated statement, but I agree that someone in the room during the higher up meetings definitely should and I will ask around. Concerning the private rights of action, I think the term "abuse" is somewhat misleading. No one has a protected right to have anything on YouTube, so if the site decides to take the ultra-cautious approach and shut down anything remotely resembling infringement, that's basically their prerogative. I guess you could sue a reporting observer for damages if you could somehow show the report was knowingly false and could show damages, but that would be extremely difficult. I have no doubt that some parties have abused that procedure, but as Denzel Washington once said, "It's not what you know. It's what you can prove." We must consider the consequences of the private right of action here. It is possible for anyone to send a copyright takedown notice to youtube. Because of the safe harbor provision, you can reasonably assume that no company will ever not take the safe harbor. The practical effect of all of this is even if claims are entirely bogus, content will be removed, regardless of context. Since you have a lot of difficulty proving it was intentional, this is absolutely what opens the system up to abuse. Ops, it was accidental. I took down your a video of a competition project because I claimed copyright on that video because you mentioned my product somewhere in the video. This could also easily be used to oppress free speech, impede fair use, and has a ton of other unintended consequences. The DMCA does not do enough effective net good (it is supposed to protect the rights of copyright holders) to offset what I consider very serious negatives, especially as more people and organizations realize the can abuse the system. Examples of abuse of DMCA and/or unintended consequences (e.g. impairing speech, destroying creative works, or taking away fair-use rights) that occur because of it: http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20120403/06340118353/video-showcases-many-perfectly-legitimate-reasons-to-jailbreak-device.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120424/01324118624/rush-limbaugh-issues-dmca-takedown-to-censor-video-criticism.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120328/14591218281/major-league-soccer-abusing-dmca-to-censor-controversial-clip-player-misconduct.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120406/17372118414/forced-mpaa-filter-isohunt-means-legitimate-content-is-being-censored.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120215/11540317771/mpaa-ripping-dvds-shouldnt-be-allowed-because-it-takes-away-our-ability-to-charge-you-multiple-times-same-content.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120306/15184918004/true-damage-illegitimate-dmca-takedown-goes-much-further-than-simple-inconvenience.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120312/13265218082/dave-gorman-victim-bogus-dmca-takedown-highlights-flickrs-horrible-dmca-takedown-policy.shtml These examples show that instead of encouraging innovation in the arts and science, such bad laws designed to enforce copyright often hinder the development of art and science. There are many, many more examples of abuse that I could provide. Such law is designed to uphold the rights of copyright holders. Let's talk next about the premise, the benefits of copyright and patents, which support such laws. On April 27 2012 02:20 SaintBadger wrote: The issue with rent-seeking behavior is a valid concern, but I am not creative enough to envision a way of legislating against any sort of licensing or patent trolling. If one were to not allow patents to be transferred as consideration, there would be zero value to invention unless the inventor also had means of reproducing whatever we're talking about for sale. The first-to-file system was heavily criticized in every class I took on the subject, but again, I don't know how one crafts an equitable alternative. I realize at this point that my main answer has been, "I don't know." There's nothing intrinsically wrong with that, but you bring up some points that bear discussion. I do, however, have a fairly strong opinion on the subject of the moral right to works. The government expends resources on a massive scale enforcing the rights granted to patent holders. SOME element of public use is rightfully withheld in return. We're very comfortable with patents and copyrights after so many years of their existence, but at a basic level, these concepts are somewhat counterintuitive. If I see a guy using some sort of new tool and I think I could copy his design successfully with my own efforts, it's a somewhat interesting concept that I, in fact, can't do that without paying the inventor. Well, it's a stretched analogy, but you get the basic idea. The government expends resources on a massive scale enforcing the rights granted to patent holders. SOME element of public use is rightfully withheld in return. As to the specifics of timeframe and exceptions, I should be able to speak more specifically than I am currently, but it has been a while since IP. Note that if we abolished copyright and patent law tomorrow, there would be no need for government to regulate any of it, and therefore all costs to legislate, enforce, etc. would be gone, and therefore there would be no need to withhold any rights. Copying a design (through transfer of knowledge) is not simple (copyright of artistic works is a different issue in this case, this is a patents only), and if it is, why should it be patentable in the first place (patent law states 'obvious' things are not supposed to be patentable, and I think a reasonable test for obviousness is how easily the implementation of an idea is copied. If it is easy to copy, it shouldn't be eligible for a patent, if it's not, it doesn't need one anyway because it's hard to copy). This can get especially ridiculous in the technology sector (see fights between apple iphone and google android over little interface design decisions, all of which are patented). I would also like to assert that the basic premise, that copyright and patent increases the amount of innovation, and encourages development of the arts and science is false. Please see the link to 'Against intellectual monopoly' I provided earlier (and read it) to understand that position, and the data supporting it. Even if it was not false, I posit that we have to measure the benefit that patents and copyrights 'gain' us vs. the obvious rent-seeking, patent trolling, enforcement and judicial costs that accompany it. I maintain that the trade-off is not worth it under our current copyright and patent law, especailly since we keep on extending copyright and patent terms and continue to limit fair use. See my problem with the current system though is that corruption seeps in with lobbying. These industries find it cheaper to spend money hiring attorneys and buying politicians (by offering them well paying jobs on 'industry groups' after they leave office as well as funding campaigns), so very few are willing to alienate said special interests. This goes for both democrats and republicans. It is part of our broken system, which frustrates me the most. I'm rather indifferent from a moral standpoint on if government should provide many of the different services it does, I am interested in what the cost/benefit analysis is, and if it is efficient to do so, the government should provide such services. As this is my stance, reduction of waste and corruption in government I consider an extremely high priority. Anything that helps this is the best improvements we can get. If corruption cannot be eliminated, it is best to leave the government out of as many issues as possible, as long as basic rights aren't be trampled (establishing what rights are basic is another difficult discussion, one I think is best left for another time. Anyway, most Americans agree on which rights are absolute as individuals). I think economists need to show what the cost-benefit trade off of patent and copyright systems are, and that the lobbing voice of studios who have a stake in rent-seeking should be taken with a block or two of salt. You noted that there is a 'sneaking suspicion' that copyright is being extended as Mickey Mouse's copyright expires, and that is not incorrect, but you did not state if you view the extensions as moving in the right direction or wrong direction. I'm interested in your thoughts. Maybe you meant to cover it with the later 'I don't know'. If that's the case, please just reiterate that so I understand that. Another poster asked: On April 27 2012 02:31 Mazer wrote: 2) What is your opinion of the GOP's general or outright support on the various bills/laws in the past decade that a lot would say were 'attacks' on personal liberties (Patriot Act, NDAA, SOPA/CISPA, etc)? In interested in this response, because I want to highlight that again here because note that acts like SOPA/PIPA and trade agreements like TTP and ACTA are targeted at additional copyright enforcement, but further erode personal liberties (either here or abroad). Are we going too far in trying to protect copyright and patents here? You noted that you don't know what an equitable solution is to things like file sharing. If there are clear negative effects to the legislation and laws in place (cost to enforce, cost of maintaining copyright and patent system, damage of protected rights such as fair-use, free speech and privacy), isn't it better to remove the bad laws from the books in the short term to prevent additional damage? I know I'm going hardcore deep into this issue, but that's partially because I don't think conservatives yet have a developed stance on copyright and patents, aside from what has been fed to them over the past 300 years, and I think this is going to become a bigger issue in the years to come (see SOPA/PIPA/ACTA/TPP protests, especially the SOPA/PIPA ones), and I want to encourage discussion (and present my opinion too of course). Lastly, I just want to thank you again for providing all the insight you have. Edit: Fixed stuff. | ||
SaintBadger
United States139 Posts
1. Why abstinence only sex-ed? The statistics I've seen on that subject are kind of muddled. The children who take abstinence-only sex-ed tend to wait longer to lose their virginities, but are less likely to use contraception when they do. So, your premise is correct. Just wanted to throw out that abnormality. From a party standpoint, this was a concession to the religious right. As you probably guess. I don't think there is any tenent of conservatism that has anything to say on the subject, so the party sort of went with the flow. I think the conscience of the party is pulled in many directions on the issue of sex and marriage and babies. On one hand, some groups believe sex without the intent to procreate is sinful. On the other hand, we have a large pro-life contingent that absolutely would rather see contraception use increase in the hope of fewer abortions. And we have a silent majority who doesn't understand the issue with teaching contraception but won't come out for teaching kids how to apply condoms in a public setting. I might add, some of the more fringe sex educators have not helped moderates on this issue by allowing stories about performing sex acts in front of kids to percolate. I suppose I don't have a great answer for you, but I do have a cool story in the form of a short play: Priest: Teaching kids contraception is like telling them you're leaving your Ferrari in the garage with the keys in the ignition, but don't drive it . . . but if you do drive it wear your seatbelt! Concerned Parent: Wouldn't you want them to wear seatbelts??? The end 2. Why do conservatives support Big Brother stuff? Politicians seem to be hard-wired to make a show of doing something in the face of a crisis. I know there are these vast conspiracy theories stating that 9/11 and all the other terrorist activity was a big inside job designed to grab power, or in the alternative, the cynical Rahm Emanuel "never let a crisis go to waste" paradigm. I really don't give politicians that much credit for foresight. I think Republicans in particular like the idea that they're the hawk party and, in the wake of 9/11 went a bit Jack Bauer on the whole civil rights thing. So, Patriot Act was passed with a ten-year sunset. Congress granted Bush pretty much carte blanche to bomb or invade anyone. And both parties rejoiced in their decisive action. The more I think about this question, the more I disagree with this as a Republican-only trait. The Patriot Act and the NDAA's from 2002 to about 2007 were as bipartisan as they come. Last I checked, Gitmo is still intact. The Patriot Act was renewed (in part, anyway). I'm hesitant to talk about SOPA/CISPA because there's still a lot of discussion about whether a modified form of that is going to hit the floor or not. If I had to guess, I'd imagine they'll die in the House. There's a cool book called "Not a Suicide Pact" (the author's name escapes me at the moment) which talks about . . . um, "stretching" the Constitution in times of crisis. A lot of it is ugly history, and we should definitely review it. 3. Re: Israel I hate to borrow yet another West Wing line, but Leo once asked Sam, "Is the only solution to this whole thing really a US flag flying over Mecca? And if that's what it takes, why are we waiting around? Let's do it!" Sam replies that he hasn't come up with a better solution, but as Leo leaves the room, Sam catches him by the arm and says, "You know I haven't stopped trying?" I think that's where we've been for a long time with Israel and Palestine. WWII ends and we feel like we've got to do something for this horribly persecuted group of people. With the last vestige of old colonialism, Britain pipes up and says, "I know! Let's displace the folks in this colony of ours and call it Zion." We've been watching the body count pile up ever since. But when two sides are willing to die for the same piece of land, and somehow they transfer that zealotry from grandfather to father to son to grandson and on and on, what are we really going to do? We pull support and the Israelis are extinct in a year. They are tough as any group on the planet, but they are an island in a sea of enemies. And we'd do well to remember that some of those enemies have good reason for their hatred. I don't try to justify terrorist acts, but sticking our heads in the sand doesn't help anything. So that's another long rant with no solution. I don't pray about much, but I do occasionally direct some towards that part of the world. I suspect we'll continue to help hold things together with ducttape and silly string till a smarter Sam comes along with something better. 4. Why do we equate college education with liberals? As I've mentioned, I think there is some element of indoctrination by osmosis that goes in many institutions of higher learning. But I agree with the premise of the question. It's a strange way of expressing oneself to look down on education. I don't pretend to understand it. I will say that I don't think Mitt was trying to sound elite when he made his comments about the world needing blue collar jobs. It was just one of a long list of things that came out . . . a bit less polished than I'd have preferred. | ||
SaintBadger
United States139 Posts
I'd like to give you statistics, or even read them for myself, but no one seems to understand how to answer the question. I've seen one survey that asks, "do you support an amendment to the U.S. Constitution stating that life begins at conception?" Err no, no I don't. I've seen another that asks, "do you think abortion should be free of charge to any U.S. resident?" Err, no. No I don't. Maybe one day I'll have the budget to run my own polls. And no, I don't think there is anymore racism, sexism, or any other ism among conservatives than one would find in any random population. In fact, decidedly less racism, since whether you think it is a good idea or not, affirmative action policies are definitionally racist. | ||
Focuspants
Canada780 Posts
1) This has been the biggest question I have had, and could never understand the reasoning of. Why is it that the Republican party rallies around the idea of a totally free market, and promotes the idea that regulations stifle success, and prevents job creation? This is especially confusing, considering lack of regulation and corporate greed was what just caused your economic collapse. In Canada, the Conservative party wanted to follow US legislation to allow banks and insurance firms the freedom that you guys offered them in playing with peoples money. The Conservatives used the exact same line of reasoning to defend their stance. They said we would limit our success, we would be less competitive, we would fall behind, we would lose jobs, and that a free market would allow for greater prosperity. The Liberals did not allow them this freedom, and that is the soul reason we werent crushed by the recession like you guys were. How can you in one sentence accept that corporate greed and deregulation caused the financial crisis, and then advocate further deregulation, and corporations operating in a "free market" as being the proper response for fixing the economy? Isn't that like punching someone in the nose and breaking it, then telling them that the only way to fix it is to punch it back into position, and expecting them to believe it? 2) How do you feel about religion being talked about at ALL in politics? In Canada, religion is not spoken about. A candidates faith (or lack thereof) is of no concern during a campaign. Do you think that requiring your candidates to identify as christian to even be considered is a good state of affairs? Why is it, that even with the separation of church and state being outlined in your constitution, politicians (mostly republicans) feel that they can claim to be constitutionalists, and claim to want things to be the way the founding fathers drew them up to be, yet blatantly ignore parts of it? | ||
SaintBadger
United States139 Posts
Re: How can conservatives claim to be pro-life? I absolutely respect the question. The length of my answer is not meant as disrespect, but as a concession to the fact that I must eat at some point today. I have done literally nothing but sit at meetings, listen to interns ramble at me, and type these responses. The Bill of Rights says no deprivation of life or liberty without due process. Some people still argue that the death penalty is cruel and unusual, but a quick study of history tells us that the death penalty was accepted before and after the founding of the U.S. as acceptable punishment for crime. I don't support it; in fact, I vehemently oppose it. Nevertheless, I am forced to concede that it is an option for each state to decide on individually. If we were to stop talking about fetuses for a moment and talk about living, breathing newborns, there would not be many people who suggest that allowing the death penalty means mothers are allowed to kill their children. So now we're back to when does a fetus become a child? You seem to be an "at birth" subscriber, so of course, you'll be happy to know that the law is on your side. I don't pretend to know for certain, but I'd damn sure prefer to err on the side of caution. As to war, I think the general idea is to punish and deter aggressors in the hopes of saving lives in the end. You may not agree with the particular engagements this country has chosen (I certainly don't), but conceptually, there's no dissonance in being engaged in war and pro-life. As to gun control, I don't think it's a matter of preference. I stated in an earlier post, the state of affairs as to gun rights was spelled out long before the Republican party existed. This whole "how can you call yourself pro-life?" talking point will always haunt us, but I honestly don't think it stands up to more than the most casual of scrutiny. Granted, I would prefer we took the death penalty off the table, but I still don't see any conceptual contradiction. | ||
SaintBadger
United States139 Posts
I am actually waiting for permission from up the totem pole to be a little more explicit as to who I am, but given that I have made several statements contrary to campaign platform, and given that I enjoy my job, I'm going to hold off on naming other campaigns for now. Remind me in a day or two. The Keystone Pipeline is going to get built. Obama doesn't feel confident with enthusiasm among the green voters just like Romney is worried about the Christian donations. But, POTUS is also going to have to toss labor a bone or two, and I suspect Keystone will be it. Makes him look nice and moderate all around. He's played that issue well. | ||
Zorkmid
4410 Posts
On April 27 2012 04:39 SaintBadger wrote: @RBKeys I am actually waiting for permission from up the totem pole to be a little more explicit as to who I am, but given that I have made several statements contrary to campaign platform, and given that I enjoy my job, I'm going to hold off on naming other campaigns for now. Remind me in a day or two. The Keystone Pipeline is going to get built. Obama doesn't feel confident with enthusiasm among the green voters just like Romney is worried about the Christian donations. But, POTUS is also going to have to toss labor a bone or two, and I suspect Keystone will be it. Makes him look nice and moderate all around. He's played that issue well. Karl ? | ||
SaintBadger
United States139 Posts
On April 27 2012 03:59 Game wrote: I want DoubleReed to have an epic 2,000th post. Please do this. Also, your commitment to this thread is more than I expected "Saint" Badger, how long will you sit here and muster up the energy to peck away at simple questions? Moreover, as the Republican party is called "the political machine", you surely are aiding that reputation. I could never, ever imagine educated and practicing politcal Democrats pandering for positive attention on a gaming website's blog section. I feel slightly damned with fake praise here, but that's perfectly ok. Maybe I'm overly sensitive. I find this incredibly engaging, plus I have learned a few things. I think it was Reed that pointed out the positive financial aspects of allowing homosexual marriage. That's definitely something that needs to enter the debate. Delwack is kicking my ass on copywright issues. I'm going to spend the weekend on that as much as I can. I mean, I could easily see how someone could come in here and be like, "Wow, this guy is either really bored or really desperate for votes," but in actuality, I think this makes me a better asset to the campaign. Who knows? Maybe one of you might actually switch your vote? You don't have to tell anyone. Totally confidential. | ||
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On April 27 2012 04:44 SaintBadger wrote: I mean, I could easily see how someone could come in here and be like, "Wow, this guy is either really bored or really desperate for votes," but in actuality, I think this makes me a better asset to the campaign. This is the new paradigm. Using the internet for real discourse as opposed to memes and namecalling. Now if only every campaign hired a couple hundred educated and dedicated people like the Saint here to do exactly this, and our democracy might actually function. | ||
SaintBadger
United States139 Posts
On April 27 2012 04:02 Delwack wrote: I know I'm going hardcore deep into this issue, but that's partially because I don't think conservatives yet have a developed stance on copyright and patents, aside from what has been fed to them over the past 300 years, and I think this is going to become a bigger issue in the years to come (see SOPA/PIPA/ACTA/TPP protests, especially the SOPA/PIPA ones), and I want to encourage discussion (and present my opinion too of course). I think that's absolutely correct, and it's part of the reason I've felt awkward trying to apply what little knowledge I have of the subject. I'm putting myself forward as a representative of a party that has done very little soul-searching on how new laws should be crafted to conform or abolish old-style media rights. When you say the overarching premise of our protection of patent rights, that is the fostering of innovation, is just plainly false, that's powerful stuff. It would take some time for me to fully flesh out whether I agree with that or not. In the meantime, I definitely intend to make use of the reading material you provided. And you'll be happy to know that I fired off an email to Dr. Townsend-Garr, keeper of all things IP-related at Tulane, pleading for her expertise. Hopefully, she'll have some time to devote, and I will share her insight. Preferably after ever-so-slightly modifying it and calling it my own. After all, educational fair use, am I right? | ||
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
Copyright is a totally different issue. Don't believe in it myself. Don't believe it's possible really to own an idea - you certainly can't sell an idea more than once, not without a police state to enforce it. | ||
ninazerg
United States7290 Posts
On April 27 2012 04:35 SaintBadger wrote: @Ninazerg Re: How can conservatives claim to be pro-life? I absolutely respect the question. The length of my answer is not meant as disrespect, but as a concession to the fact that I must eat at some point today. I have done literally nothing but sit at meetings, listen to interns ramble at me, and type these responses. The Bill of Rights says no deprivation of life or liberty without due process. Some people still argue that the death penalty is cruel and unusual, but a quick study of history tells us that the death penalty was accepted before and after the founding of the U.S. as acceptable punishment for crime. I don't support it; in fact, I vehemently oppose it. Nevertheless, I am forced to concede that it is an option for each state to decide on individually. If we were to stop talking about fetuses for a moment and talk about living, breathing newborns, there would not be many people who suggest that allowing the death penalty means mothers are allowed to kill their children. So now we're back to when does a fetus become a child? You seem to be an "at birth" subscriber, so of course, you'll be happy to know that the law is on your side. I don't pretend to know for certain, but I'd damn sure prefer to err on the side of caution. As to war, I think the general idea is to punish and deter aggressors in the hopes of saving lives in the end. You may not agree with the particular engagements this country has chosen (I certainly don't), but conceptually, there's no dissonance in being engaged in war and pro-life. As to gun control, I don't think it's a matter of preference. I stated in an earlier post, the state of affairs as to gun rights was spelled out long before the Republican party existed. This whole "how can you call yourself pro-life?" talking point will always haunt us, but I honestly don't think it stands up to more than the most casual of scrutiny. Granted, I would prefer we took the death penalty off the table, but I still don't see any conceptual contradiction. Thanks for the reply, I have a few things I'd like to address in your answer that pertain to my question, though. The first is the disposition of the Republican party and Conservatives towards being pro-war and pro-military. In terms of sheer gruesome carnage, war is a lot more destructive to human life than abortion. My question was more geared towards the question of support for war, including pre-war support for the war in Iraq when Saddam Hussein was cooperating with U.N. inspectors, and the current situation where Conservatives are considering a war with Iran. This position would seem to contradict the Conservative position on issues regarding "The sanctity of life." Second, concerning the fifth amendment - you've said "The Bill of Rights says no deprivation of life or liberty without due process" - and if a woman is carrying a baby, she is the vessel of that baby. If she dies, the baby dies. If the baby dies, she could also potentially die. Until birth, the baby is literally physically connected with it's mother, essentially making it a part of the mother's body. Any federal mandate to ban abortion would therefore, be unconstitutional, and the Supreme Court has ruled as such, which sets a precedent for pro-choice medical options to be constitutional. I don't see how the Constitution, which guarantees personal liberty, can be used to deny women legitimate medical care. Not that I want to see abortions happen, or ever considered getting an abortion personally; but the fact is that until the baby is born, a woman has the ultimate governance over something that is a part of her body, and a part of her health. | ||
SaintBadger
United States139 Posts
1. Re:Free Market First, I'd say that Republicans will hit the talking points and speak as if they want zero regulation, but if you got more than a sound byte from them, I think most of them would say they are shorthanding a certain amount of exceptions within the word "regulation". For example, taxes would technically fall under regulation. Granted, some of us want none of those, but the typical politician isn't talking about taxes when they mention goverment regulation. Also, it's very difficult to talk about regulation as a general concept, when in fact, different industries are regulated in very different ways. Since you mention the financial collapse, let's talk about banks. One regulation on every FDIC-insured bank is that it must maintain on-hand cash equal to 10% of their total deposits. On paper, that sounds great. If there's a run on banks, and a bunch of people withdraw money all at once, the bank should remain liquid. But it isn't great. In fact, as someone whose fiance' works in a bank, it kind of sucks. It means that at any given point, one of every ten dollars is not earning interest and not working for the bank in any way. That's profit margin that will be made up in fees to consumers. Furthermore, it accomplishes one of the worst effects of poorly-worded regulation: It has a disparate impact on different-sized banks. Hancock Bank, based in smalltown Gulfport, MS, has aggregate deposits of . . . let's say $100 million. That means ten million is sitting around, just waitng for some run on the bank. At a prime rate of, say 1%, that's $100,000 per year in lost earnings. Ok, now let's look at Citibank. Let's say aggregate deposits of . . . $20 billion. That's 2 billion sitting around, or 20 million in lost interest. Now, you may be saying "boo hoo, big bank loses out on a little money," but I wonder how many people 20 million employs per year. The other annoying aspect of regulating bodies is that, much like patent law, they are ridiculously slow in adapting to the times. No one uses cash anymore in the amounts we're discussing here. We have debit cards and check books. Guess what those DON'T require. You got it! Cash on hand in a bank. As for free markets causing the financial collapse, you can't really make that statement, because some of the regulations played direct roles in the collapse. Any American bank financing mortgages was required to maintain a certain percentage of their portfolio in sub-prime notes. In English, that means all banks were required to give mortgages to people who had no reason to believe they could successfully manage that debt. That may not have directly caused the bubble, but it damn sure didn't help. And above all else, the reason our financial system collapsed is that their was no risk for the risk takers. The banks got bailed out. One of the beauties of a TRULY free market is that you sink or swim on your own. We have never really had the stomach to not extend a corporate safety net under the free market. If we actually tried with the understanding that mortgage underwriters were going to be homeless and on unemployment if their investments tanked, we might have seen a little more prudent business decisionmaking. | ||
SaintBadger
United States139 Posts
Re: Religion in Politics The separation of church and state is a little overblown. That phrase comes from a letter Jefferson wrote to some Baptists. The actual founding documents just says no establishing state religion and no preventing free exercise thereof. Believe me, in a country where there are religions centered around pot and peyote, that's a tall enough order. We don't need speech codes. There is no right to not be offended. There is no right to not be annoyed. As to how religion should inform the work of politics, I've done my best to answer that in other posts. | ||
SaintBadger
United States139 Posts
On April 27 2012 05:00 sam!zdat wrote: Interestingly, the word "patent" comes from the latin "patere" which means "to open up" or "to reveal." The point of a patent is to get people to divulge their trade secrets so that they can become a part of all human knowledge - that's why you have to explicitly detail how to build the thing when you are awarded a patent. The reward for this is exclusive rights for a certain period of time... the problem is that that period of time has been extended in years at the same time that the rate of technological progress speeds up, making the length "adjusted for inflation" even longer to the point where it ends up being counterproductive. Copyright is a totally different issue. Don't believe in it myself. Don't believe it's possible really to own an idea - you certainly can't sell an idea more than once, not without a police state to enforce it. Yet another new thing I've learned today. | ||
Recognizable
Netherlands1552 Posts
| ||
SaintBadger
United States139 Posts
On April 27 2012 05:16 ninazerg wrote: Thanks for the reply, I have a few things I'd like to address in your answer that pertain to my question, though. The first is the disposition of the Republican party and Conservatives towards being pro-war and pro-military. In terms of sheer gruesome carnage, war is a lot more destructive to human life than abortion. My question was more geared towards the question of support for war, including pre-war support for the war in Iraq when Saddam Hussein was cooperating with U.N. inspectors, and the current situation where Conservatives are considering a war with Iran. This position would seem to contradict the Conservative position on issues regarding "The sanctity of life." Second, concerning the fifth amendment - you've said "The Bill of Rights says no deprivation of life or liberty without due process" - and if a woman is carrying a baby, she is the vessel of that baby. If she dies, the baby dies. If the baby dies, she could also potentially die. Until birth, the baby is literally physically connected with it's mother, essentially making it a part of the mother's body. Any federal mandate to ban abortion would therefore, be unconstitutional, and the Supreme Court has ruled as such, which sets a precedent for pro-choice medical options to be constitutional. I don't see how the Constitution, which guarantees personal liberty, can be used to deny women legitimate medical care. Not that I want to see abortions happen, or ever considered getting an abortion personally; but the fact is that until the baby is born, a woman has the ultimate governance over something that is a part of her body, and a part of her health. I wrote a couple of different responses here. I mean, obviously this is deep moral stuff we're trekking through here, but in the end, I still don't find any hypocrisy in the Republican stance. We're not looking to go to war at the drop of a hat. Furthermore, under the Bush administration, the rules of engagement for military on the ground were incredibly restrained relative to any previous conflict. We do recognize the potential for unintended death in war, and we try very hard to act intelligently and minimize it. But, si vis pacem para bellum. If you want peace, you prepare for war. And yes, that's from The Punisher. I don't respect the pacifist version of peace. My Poly Sci professor called it Chamberlainian peace. Same idea with gun control. There is a chance that you'll meet someone one day who intends you harm, and sometimes talking isn't going to work. I don't mean to patronize you at all, but it's really that simple to me. What is extremely complicated is deciding when and where those situations have actually arisen on an international level. But once the decision is made, it is just to act. Regarding the fifth amendment, let me ask you something. Forget everything you know about abortion law. In a void where all is legal, if I wanted to pass a law that forbids an abortion IF the pregnancy had reached a point at which two doctors will sign off (at the risk of their licenses) on the notion that the child could be delivered viably THAT DAY without foreseeable consequence to mother and child beyond normal natal care, what would your feeling be on that law? I'm actually genuinely curious. The truth is, that's basically what the Court did in Roe. They said that on average, a fetus was not viable until six months into gestation. Ergo, prior to six months, states can't interfere with abortion. After six months, the fetus is deemed (not officially, but functionally) to be an unborn person with the right to not be aborted. More accurately, the state's interest in keeping the child alive had at that point risen beyond the mother's interest in medical privacy. Of course, the problem is that science keeps moving. In 1973, viability was around six and a half months. Now we're down to four months (at the absolute extremes of medicine, granted), but the concept is the same. Many believe that that's why the Court changed course in 1992 with Casey. They realized this whole viability thing wasn't going to preserve the right of abortion for much longer in a meaningful way. That's somewhat of a conspiracy theory, but it fits the language of the opinion. | ||
SaintBadger
United States139 Posts
| ||
| ||