Total posts: 9,115
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
Yeah, you did mention it in the sign-ups. Since WyIted was aware of that, maybe we could get an extension on DP1 to ensure you can participate.
I didn't announce it yet but that was the plan. So probably around 48 hours remain after this point. So it ends Tuesday at 6:30PM Eastern time
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@badger
What do you think of your own argument here? What about enforcing insulin price caps? The point of government is to bolster the individual -- it is by the people, for the people. It allows us to negotiate from a position of strength
Given that the FDA has created a monopoly by making it cost a billion to bring a drug to market, it's probably ethical to cap prices. I think you really have to be scared to do so though and you should be very reluctant to.
I believe that if you really want to give people a place of strength to get the best prices you open the market up by requiring less to being drugs to market. It has to be cheaper to bring new drugs to market because you want to incentivize the R&D departments of drug companies .
You also i think need to drop these patents that hold the drug hostage for way too long. Allow more competition.
This is going to allow insurance providers to negotiate better prices.
I have seen some price caps in socialists or communist nations destroy industries and start a type of death spiral where you are forcing businesses to operate at a loss, which drives them away.
Centrally planned economies just don't work well.
I will say that welfare is a rich people problem along with a poor people problem.
Right now the FDA is a type of corporate welfare for billion dollar corporations given that only a few companies can pay the toll to bring a new drug to market. Given that these companies through lobbying and fiddling with regulatory agencies have created a toll to destroy competition than it's the right of a government to impose these prices caps. Also the government should be very cautious when doing so because of the death spiral and they should also take measures to lower the toll to bring a drug to market.
Badger, if you developed a cure for cancer tomorrow. You couldn't take it to market. You would have to go to a billion dollar corporation and share your cure with them, where they would only pay you a few million and would take about 10 years to bring that drug to market to start saving lives.
Created:
I think In general liberals would value autonomy quite highly if you exclude the woke and conservatives would place a higher value on self ownership
Created:
-->
@baggins
Can you please clarify the mistake you think you made. They sound like almost the same thing to me or maybe I’m just misunderstanding something.
Yes so bodily autonomy would essentially mean I can do whatever i want with my body.
Self ownership goes a bit further. It not only would imply bodily autonomy it would mean i am not subject to government requirements on me such as taxation because i own my labor and taking the product of my labor amounts to theft.
Technically bodily autonomy doesn't need to mean I own my body. I could do whatever I want and the government could still tax me on what I did and it wouldn't get in the way of my autonomy.
Created:
Now this is how chat GPT have rebuttals to my points after I played with it a bit and I think these arguments are a bit superior than what you elicited.
An intelligent pro-choice advocate would likely push back against **consent to sex implying responsibility for pregnancy** in a few key ways:### **1. Consent to Sex ≠ Consent to Pregnancy**They might argue that consenting to sex is not the same as consenting to **long-term physical use of one’s body.**- Example: If you drive a car, you accept the risk of an accident, but that doesn’t mean you have to donate your organs if you injure someone.- Sex is an action, but pregnancy is a **separate biological event** that happens **after** the action.- People can consent to sex while also taking steps (e.g., contraception) to avoid pregnancy. When birth control fails, forcing someone to continue pregnancy **punishes them for an outcome they actively tried to prevent.**### **2. No One Else Has This Level of Bodily Obligation**They might say that even if you **cause** another person to be dependent on you, the law does not force anyone to give up their body to sustain someone else.- Example: If a father causes a car accident that injures his child, he is legally responsible for **financial** damages but **not required to donate a kidney or blood**, even if it would save the child’s life.- Even **parents of born children** are not legally required to give their bodies for their children (e.g., forced organ donation, forced breastfeeding).- Pregnancy is unique in that it requires **one person’s body to sustain another’s survival for months**, which is a level of obligation the law doesn’t impose in other cases.### **3. Pregnancy is More than Just an Obligation—It’s a Physical Burden**A strong pro-choice advocate would emphasize that pregnancy is not just an inconvenience but a **major physical and medical risk**:- It can cause lasting physical harm (gestational diabetes, preeclampsia, birth injuries).- It can be fatal—pregnancy-related deaths still occur, especially in the U.S.- Even if someone *unknowingly* consents to sex, they might not have understood the full extent of pregnancy’s toll on their body.They would argue that if **bodily autonomy is absolute**, it should allow someone to remove an unwanted pregnancy just as they would refuse to donate an organ.### **How You Could Respond**- The **"sex vs. pregnancy" distinction** is weak because **causation matters**—if you **willingly** engage in an act that creates life, you have some responsibility for its outcome.- **Parental obligations exist before birth.** A parent can’t neglect a born child just because caring for them is burdensome. Why should this change before birth?- **Bodily autonomy is already limited in other cases.** If pregnancy is uniquely burdensome, we could focus on exceptions (rape, extreme medical risks) rather than a blanket right to abortion.### **Where This Leaves the Debate**Both sides have strong points, and the real disagreement is whether **pregnancy is a special case** where bodily autonomy can be overridden due to responsibility for the unborn. You could refine your argument by emphasizing **causation, parental duties, and the moral difference between killing vs. letting die.**
And you may even agree with these points but by allowing chat GPT to do most the work it made your points seem weaker than what I assume they actually are.
Created:
Here is my issue with chat GPT and why i don't think it precisely matches what you are trying to say.
The risk of pregnancy is a consequence that individuals are aware of when engaging in sexual activity, but it does not equate to consent to the full experience of pregnancy and childbirth. The decision to continue with a pregnancy is a separate and deliberate choice that goes beyond the initial consent to sexual activity. In other words, consent to sex is not the same as consent to the enduring and life-altering experience of carrying a child to term.
Yes it's assumed we disagree on this point but this doesn't address my argument which is essentially the act of sex acts a type of covert social contract.
This does state that you disagree, but that you acknowledge some sort of covert contract exists there.
I appreciate you conceding the point some ort of contract exists. However you haven't really explained why your ideal of what that covert contract entails is more accurate than mine.
I feel like whatever the hell you told the AI probably looks a bit different with better logic than what it spit out.
Created:
-->
@baggins
Personally i don't have much respect for academia, I don't care about the rules of grammar beyond what is necessary to understand what is written
My goal is not necessarily to be correct either so it is important to me that I am engaging with humans.
I think i made a mistake in my own original argument but i presented it anyway because i put a lot of effort into explaining the hypocrisy of some on the left.
If you are curious my mistake was conflating bodily autonomy with self ownership.
I still think the hypocrisy exists but it may be a bit over stated due to my conflation of those two concepts
Created:
-->
@baggins
Put in a prompt to make it as concise if possible if you can please. Sorry i just wanted to make sure you were in fact a human.
Created:
Feel free to run his statements past an AI detector to check for yourselves.
Created:
-->
@Barney
@whiteflame
Baggins needs to be warned about the heavy use of AI in their communication with other. I do have conversations with chat GPT to check my logic, but nobody comes to this site to talk with chat GPT
Created:
-->
@baggins
Your text when checked is not passing an AI detector. If you are human use your own words
Created:
-->
@baggins
Even if we accept the premise that an unborn baby is, indeed, a person, another question arises: does a this person have the right to use the body of another person without consent? This situation parallels the ethical dilemmas surrounding organ donation or life-saving medical treatments. We generally do not compel individuals to donate organs or provide medical care to others, even when the recipients are in dire need. Thus, the issue becomes whether a fetus, assuming it is granted personhood, can claim bodily autonomy over the pregnant person's body, and if so, to what extent this claim is justified.
I think it's fair to have a hierarchy of values and valuing life above autonomy while still valuing both.
I also have to assume a person would believe a parent has an obligation to feed their child or help them if they are choking and this would infringe on bodily autonomy. So we would agree that some level of interrupting the bodily autonomy of the mother is acceptable.
You also have seemed to accept that with vaccines or taxes we have an obligation to interrupt our bodily autonomy for the benefit of others . The baby would be the other.
If you are asking me what would give that baby some right over their mother's body, I would argue something along the lines of social contract theory. By engaging in sexual intercourse you are signing a type of covert contract with the yet to be baby where you agree to carry them to full term and take care of them.
My argument that the baby has rights over the mother would be rooted in a variation of social contract theory.
Created:
Posted in:
Vote count
(2/8) Vader- Pie, owen
(2/8) Banana- Lunatic, Greyparrot
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@badger
It's a classic shell game. When the cost of living rises due to wage hikes, the rich producers—whether they’re large corporations or wealthy investors—stand to gain disproportionately. They will pass the increased costs down to consumers through higher prices, and because they hold the power in the marketplace, they will maintain their margins while inflating the cost of living. Meanwhile, the workers who the minimum wage hikes are supposed to help end up in the same place, with their purchasing power eroded by rising price. Overpriced dirt.
I don't buy the minimum wage increases causes prices to rise necessarily. some businesses have really tight profit margins and it certainly does cost increases there. Stuff like restaurants, but since the minimum wage for waitresses is like $4 an hour due to tipping the effect is minimized for diners. I oppose minimum wage hikes personally but I also try to support things that would help increase wages that employers typically fight back against. For example I think in the early part of covid19 there was a time where employers were struggling to get workers and pay higher wages and they fought against this by running skeleton crews and blaming their former workers for not showing up instead of hiring new workers at higher rates. Many of these same businesses took covid19 loans from the government which is also a type of welfare. I just thought we should all recognize this as employers crying about having to finally pay a fair wage and we should just name them and shame them and not give them any outs just let them suffer if they won't raise wages. Their competitors would be rewarded by crossing that picket line sooner. It was a type of labor strike.
It's essentially the same thing when you see companies say there is a nursing shortage or a tech shortage or a truck driver shortage and petition for laws to bring in more competition in those fields. Whenever companies have a labor shortage than it's always them really saying "I don't like paying these people a fair wage so daddy government please help". We just need to as voters make sure the government doesn't play their game. For example recently employers cried about truck drivers making too much so they begged the government to lower the truck driving age to 18" As we will see soon this will make it harder for truck drivers to make more than they do now.
This is long winded but my point is that raising the minimum wage I wouldn't expect to cause much inflation, but I do agree it will effect unemployment. Liberals would argue that the people helped would far outnumber the people hurt by these policies but normally also admit some increase in unemployment. The last I looked economists were recommending a $15 minimum wage. Nobody not even 16 year olds should be accepting a job that pays less than that anyway. Maybe there would be some movement in prices.
The real kicker is that the wealth generated by this process often doesn't stay in the local economy. Large corporations and wealthy individuals are fluid and have the ability to export that capital out of state, or even out of the country, where it will be invested in places with either lower costs or where the value of money is greater. This means the local economy gets stripped of wealth, while those at the top keep reaping the benefits of inflated prices and exported profits. It's how urban decay has happened in every crony city in Ameirca, creating vast areas of slums and forgotten people.
I agree that certain companies will export labor to make up for minimum wage hikes. I do like Trump's solution of punishing this behavior with tarrifs. if we pay americans more and you think you can escape this tax by moving overseas and harming american workers than adding a penalty imported goods to disincentivize this sort of behavior is important. You are likely getting inferior labor outside of the United States as well so your business will not benefit from lowering costs and leaving. If they move to a place where its virtually slave labor like with some Chinese products we shouldn't even allow that stuff to enter the country. I am okay with some measures that increase costs if it ends slave labor and punishes businesses who hurt the american worker.
And while all this is going on, the working class gets stuck footing the bill. They're stuck with the higher prices for the same basic stuff, but hey will never see the same kind of benefit that the wealthy do from the increased prices. To add insult to injury, it's a wealth transfer from the bottom to the top, disguised as a well-intentioned effort to lift the poor out of poverty, when in reality, it often keeps them in the same place, or worse. The minimum wage cities speak for themselves, just take a drive through the slums and look at the prices everywhere.
My main concern would be harm to mom and pop businesses that are effected. Any minimum wage increase should be accompanied by some sort of exceptions in the law.
There's ways to provide relief and welfare for the poorest, but this surely isn't it. If the rich support it, you know it's a bad idea.
You can find rich people on both sides of any issue. This is a poor argument.
in summary I would disagree that minimum wage increases would effect most prices the way GP thinks they will. I think it will have some effect on unemployment rates, so if most poor people are willing to live with that risk and they clearly are in places like Seattle than they should have the right to create that policy and deal with the consequences both good and bad.
My biggest sympathy would be for small business owners who I think are essential at keeping big businesses in check to some degree. SO I would like to see exceptions for mom and pop shops.
Now for your response to his.
Your dumb shell game amounts to:The rich actually want to be forced to pay a higher wage.This is somehow exactly what they wanted all along and will somehow make the poor poorer.Only solution is to do nothing. Let the rich have their way. Stay poor.But wait... oh no, what if the rich just increase wages themselves then? Does that mean we cannot avoid this terrible trap?Oh no they're paying me more money! This is the disastrous situation GP warned me about! Somehow I'm ruined!Who fucking conned this dude into believing that enforcing higher salaries is a trap by rich people? How did you do that?
Yes your criticism of his logic is good. If minimum wage increases really help businesses than they would be increasing their wages. I am going to college and amazon is paying for it. I took a pay cut to work at Amazon so they would do stuff like pay for college. They pay significantly above minimum wage. I am not a manager here or anything and I make $23 an hour in an area were other unskilled labor would normally make around $12-$15 . They also pay for college which amounts to another $12,000 on top of that salary and they match about 5% of my contributions to 401k so whatever the hell 5% of my salary is you can add that on top of my base salary. Also I take an extra 20 hours a week which are paid at around $31.50 an hour. Amazon is currently the cheapest place to get stuff online. If you order anything online it is cheaper on Amazon and you are probably getting it faster and with a better return policy. SO no paying people a fair wage does not have to harm your business.
Maybe the rich people who support increases in minimum wage, run businesses where they pay well above minimum wage and know the impacts won't harm businesses as much as many business owners think they will.
I also think you are debating a person who isn't giving his real premises. My guess is the real argument that GP has but fails to give is as follows.
premise 1- Government only exists to protect private contracts
Premise 2- A minimum wage increase interferes with the voluntary right to set contracts between 2 people
conclusion- The government is overstepping their authority by increasing minimum wage or in fact having a minimum wage at all
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@badger
I have been ignoring any post of grey parrots where he doesn't tag me but sure I will get context and analyze his opinion
Give me a bit
Created:
-->
@baggins
Can you define person and put in a syllogismno it wouldn't be possible for me. I haven't taken a position on personhood in this thread either. I also have not taken a position on abortion in this thread
why you think bodily autonomy is not a good argument for pro choice?
Sure, the thread is about for most people it doesn't serve them well not all.
P1. People should not use arguments inconsistent with the conclusions of their other positions
P2. Many liberals hold inconsistent views on bodily autonomy
Conclusion- many liberals should seek to resolve those inconsistencies or they should move to other argument.s in favor of their pro choice opinion
Created:
Posted in:
No I am not going to list out the thousands of rights one by one. The arguments are they shouldn't have the same rights as US citizens. Not a single person has ever stated they deserve to be raped but only that they don't have rights like the right to food stamps for example and American would get. Stop strawmanning
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@CatholicApologetics
I am going to put you in as a replacement. With so many players I assume somebody will forget about the game or have something come up
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
I don't have a strong opinion on it but I wanted to explore the line of logic
Created:
Posted in:
DO you not have a life? Literally zero people on the planet think illegal immigrants deserve no rights beyond the occasional hyperbole of boomers
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Casey_Risk
cryptozoology is limited to legendary animals where there is no proof of their existence, so bigfoot would not be included, due to overwhelming evidence of it's existence
Created:
Posted in:
Welcome to Hell Diary. With 14 players it will require 8 votes to lynch. the DP is 72 hours and NPs are 48 hours until the player pool shrinks.
## Rules
1. No chat GPT allowed. I mean you can use it but no copy and pasting anything off of chat GPT
2. No cryptology.
3. no PM analysis which includes but is not limited to time stamps or pm structure etc. win conditions and structure of the PMs vary so the wrong kind of PM analysis is unlikely to happen but keep the game fair.
4. Dead players will go to purgatory where the events of this game will determine if they are hell bound and heaven bound and participate in another social deduction game. This game will begin as soon as a predetermine condition is met in this game, if the pre-determined condition is met.
## Players
1. Savant
2. Greyparrot
3. lunatic
4. Pie
5. Casey
6. Mharman
7. Vader
8. Earth
9. Owen
10. Banana
11. Joebob
12. Austin
13. Barney
14. Whiteflame
Good luck
Created:
The only argument we hear from the left is that we should have abortion due to respecting a woman's bodily autonomy. I am not sure if this argument is used to appeal to the fact conservatives prioritize freedom, but it doesn't seem to be honest and at best is inconsistent.
Personally I think it's wrong to murder a child whether it might infringe on a person's bodily autonomy or not, but let's just assume that the child doesn't count as a human. Let's examine the bodily autonomy argument alone.
# The Argument
Premise 1 - bodily autonomy is or should be a right
premise 2 - banning late abortions infringes on bodily autonomy
conclusion- Abortion bans interfere with the right to bodily autonomy
## What is Bodily Autonomy
For the definition of bodily autonomy I went to an organization that advocates for the right to abortion. https://arc-southeast.org/2024/01/12/what-does-bodily-autonomy-mean/
*Bodily Autonomy refers to each person’s right to make decisions about their own body, without coercion or limits imposed by outside forces*
This is also how Libertarians and others who think of the philosophical definition of bodily autonomy would define it. They would call it self ownership, but it's essentially the same thing. Many would limit this and say something along the lines of "Your right to swing your fist, ends where my face begins", but those advocating a pro choice position I have never seen bring this up.
I think it's not brought up because most pro life people would agree with the bodily autonomy premise if you add in the statement about autonomy ending where another person's face begins. Then the argument is about personhood again.
The bodily autonomy argument we can take should take precedent over the baby's life.
## What this analysis leaves out
The one thing I want to leave out here is that the bodily autonomy argument may be a pro choice strawman in and of itself. It's not worth discussing much, if it is. If it's a type of projection where they think pro life proponents have some secret wish to control the bodies of women than the argument cannot be taken seriously. Even that projection would be a way to attempt to get around the beliefs of most pro life proponents. The true belief that they legitimately believe an unborn baby is a real person who deserves to be protected in her most vulnerable state, while she is completely dependent on her mother.
If you don't actually believe in bodily autonomy (at least in its most extreme form) than just be honest and give your true argument which is most likely that an unborn baby is not a person and doesn't deserve any special protection. Also if you that is you than this isn't for you other than to point out your hypocrisy.
Another thing the analysis leaves out is any sort of argument against the most extreme pro life arguments. nearly all people who call themselves pro life will still support abortions if they put the health or life of the mother at undue risk, and I think a sizable amount of those who call themselves pro-life will also not object to abortions done in the first few months of pregnancy when the unborn child has quite obviously not achieved personhood.
This analysis is also not for libertarians. I have found that there is an extreme form of libertarianism that is entirely consistent with their beliefs in bodily autonomy up to the point of legalizing child neglect.
## What a consistent belief in bodily autonomy looks like
There are some that take the bodily autonomy premise as an absolute and take it seriously, but first and to reiterate the point we know that pro life people believe in bodily autonomy to a certain extent. They just believe that bodily autonomy ends where another persons face begins.
The pro choice people who just claim to believe to in bodily autonomy in the same way would just disagree with whether an unborn baby counts as a "person".
Others who respond to pro life arguments about the sanctity of personhood by bringing up bodily autonomy are admitting in a roundabout way that they just value a person's bodily autonomy over the life and health of another.
### Covid 19
A consistent belief in bodily autonomy would not support vaccine mandates or forced mask wearing. Granted this won't apply to all liberals who support bodily autonomy. Most of the calls for vaccine mandates during the time of Covid 19 were a small minority of liberals, in the United States at least. Liberals in other countries need to know they are most likely inconsistent on bodily autonomy and reconcile that somehow.
### Taxes and Subsidies
Taxes are probably going to be the biggest inconsistency, showing the bodily autonomy argument doesn't work as a good enough premise. By necessity if you do support any sort of social subsidies than you necessarily would have to support taxation, because otherwise the subsidies would be unfunded.
Perhaps you could argue that the government could print money and then taxes would be unnecessary. I would argue that printing money is a form of taxation since it dilutes the current money supply and decrease the value of money.
Taxes and subsidies present a problem for those who use autonomy to argue in favor of the pro-choice position due to the previously mentioned bodily autonomy argument.
Income is derived from labor and it is income from this labor that is taxed. This means that at least some of the time you do not have the self ownership that is required to claim you have bodily autonomy. If you work 10 hours and the money from 1 of those hours goes to taxes, than the government owned your body for that hour.
By extension, if a persons labor is required for the subsidies or "positive rights". Meaning by law they have to perform a service or they are arrested or punished for dereliction of duty, it would violate bodily autonomy. Requiring the MMR vaccine, somebody to show up to get an ID, or even to stop masturbating in public are all violations of bodily autonomy.
## Conclusion
The only people consistent on bodily autonomy are Hoppes style Libertarians, so it is not a valid argument against those who believe they are standing up for the rights of babies. If your real argument is that the unborn baby does not have personhood, I would use that instead, but if you actually think bodily autonomy is a good argument and does not end where a person's face begins than you should reconsider your other beliefs, that is if you are not already a libertarian or anarchist.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
I'm a white Puerto Rican genius.
So there is literally zero excuse
"Supporting abortion" is not a thing genius. Democrats support women having control over their own bodies. That's kind of a basic right.
Not when the female is a baby though then we just murder them I guess.
Democrats support helping people in need. Are there better ways to do so that might curb some of these issues of dependency? Sure there are. Will republicans help us figure out how to solve any of these problems? No,
They already have. Read every article on Mises.org. implementing Austrian economics would turn us into a virtual utopia.
Created:
Posted in:
I am a people pleaser so heaven and hell and diary.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
Fuck it your in. Give me 1o minutes
Created:
Posted in:
Although technically we will probably need a backup at some point anyway
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I don't know why that logic is so popular when they are literally creating race quotas for places they deem as too white or lowering standards because places are top Chinese. We have white FAA people suing because they literally scored perfect on the exam and are denied a job because of people less perfect. We also have Indian students with high MCAT scores having to sue colleges because they allowed students in with lower MCAT scores
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@badger
The regulatory agencies were bought by the wealthy.
For example prior to the FadA existing Most of our food was bought in Mom and pop shops.
So we had a lot of competition. The competition was not eliminated until the regulatory agency was created this giving the corporate controlled government more power. Now 80% of our food supply is from the biggest food companies.
If you could step in and stop the FDA from being created this would have stopped that sort of thing from happening.
A lot of regulatory agencies were created during that time which eliminated competition.
If you think about it it makes sense. If you own a farm and are bringing eggs to the farmers market every day to sell to your community, then the government comes in and creates regulations that take 20 employees and a million dollars to comply with, what happens to that business?
As we can see from history even if owning the farm is a high barrier to entry the added barrier created by regulations makes it so the market is consolidated to a few corporations.
You could see it with open AI. What did they do when they immediately, essentially had a monopoly? They went to the government and begged for the market to be regulated so they could shut out competitors?
They knew the barrier of entry wasn't high enough and tried to make it higher. The same happened with Sam Bankman Fried . He begged for regulatory agencies to step in with crypto markets .
For example prior to the FadA existing Most of our food was bought in Mom and pop shops.
So we had a lot of competition. The competition was not eliminated until the regulatory agency was created this giving the corporate controlled government more power. Now 80% of our food supply is from the biggest food companies.
If you could step in and stop the FDA from being created this would have stopped that sort of thing from happening.
A lot of regulatory agencies were created during that time which eliminated competition.
If you think about it it makes sense. If you own a farm and are bringing eggs to the farmers market every day to sell to your community, then the government comes in and creates regulations that take 20 employees and a million dollars to comply with, what happens to that business?
As we can see from history even if owning the farm is a high barrier to entry the added barrier created by regulations makes it so the market is consolidated to a few corporations.
You could see it with open AI. What did they do when they immediately, essentially had a monopoly? They went to the government and begged for the market to be regulated so they could shut out competitors?
They knew the barrier of entry wasn't high enough and tried to make it higher. The same happened with Sam Bankman Fried . He begged for regulatory agencies to step in with crypto markets .
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@badger
Am I making sense here?
I think employers tend to get too big probably for different reasons than you if we are analyzing the source of the problem.
Regulatory agencies are used by businesses to create high barriers of entry and gain unfair advantages over other businesses.
My theory is remove the source of the problem and the problem goes away.
However if we are going to take a pragmatic approach I would suggest some of the following things.
1. There is a type of circular nature between corporate America and regulatory agencies. We literally had people complaining that the HHS nominee was not a former CEO of an insurance company.
That shit needs to end. The revolving door between healthcare executives and regulators needs to end otherwise it presents a perverse incentive to make beneficial regulations to keep your prospects for a job open once you quit the regulatory agency.
Once you work in government be it the FDA or some other regulatory agencies, you should be banned from working for a private company you regulated. Lower level employees the ban wouldn't apply to but those with real decision making powers.
2. End companies being being able to pay money or create lobbying groups. I get a feeling current Democrats would oppose this though 20 years ago they were calling for it based on how much donations they get from that group now says.
So I would like to see the government influence of corporate America ended and I think a lot of the anti competition laws would end. I also don't believe monopolies cannot exist in competitive environments.
As far as wealth inequality is concerned I don't think it matters. I think what's most important is that poor people can opt out of being poor if they want and can make enough to live a good life.
I know some homeless people who refuse to work and live that way intentionally. I was homeless at one point and I wasn't one of them but I talked to a few. I wouldn't dream of taking away their right to sleep in the woods and dig in trashcan. They equate that with freedom and aren't entirely wrong.
So I would like to see measures taken so those people can recover their life. We would likely disagree with what those measures would be but some stuff we could agree on is perhaps something called "ban the box".
There is no reason an employee should give a shit if an employee has a criminal record in most cases and to limit the options of people who went to prison is stupid. They paid for their crimes. Sure you never want a child molestor working at a daycare but jobs like dishwasher, trashman and janitor at a sex toy shop. Many times these jobs will require a background check and exclude felons. There should be a law that the job is offered prior to a background check and I less the charge makes the person less qualified for the job such as a bank robber working at a bank than it should be illegal for the employer to rescind the offer.
So where were we. Wealth inequality. I don't think it matters so long as paths exist for people to dig themselves out of poverty realistically. Not limited to high IQ healthy people such as myself but everyone should be able to opt out of it by working hard, if they want.
In addition to the ability for the poorest people to live a good life. Corporate influence over government should be ended.
Created:
Posted in:
okay signups are closed for now the game will begin sunday at midnight
Created:
Posted in:
1. Savant (diary)
2. Greyparrot (diary)
3.lunatic (heaven/hell)
4. Pie (diary)
5. Casey ( heaven/hell)
6. Mharman (heaven/hell)
7. Vader (diary)
8. Earth (heaven/hell)
9. Owen (diary)
10. Banana (heaven/hell)
11. Joebob
12. Austin (since I will start this on Sunday)
13. Barney (skibbidy toilet)
Backups
1. Whiteflame
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@JoeBob
great going to try and send out roles tonight but will not start until 12am on sunday to comply with Austin's request others can join until PMs go out and I will make adjustments
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
You can can point out areas where there is both waste in labor or services and see areas that can be automated. So it doesn't make much sense to me that you can simultaneously have inefficiencies and labor shortages. Technically labor shortages should result in the staff only doing the most important and urgent things
Created:
Posted in:
1. Savant (diary)
2. Greyparrot (diary)
3.lunatic (heaven/hell)
4. Pie (diary)
5. Casey ( heaven/hell)
6. Mharman (heaven/hell)
7. Vader (diary)
8. Earth (heaven/hell)
9. Owen (diary)
10. Banana (heaven/hell)
11. Joebob
12. Austin (since I will start this on Sunday)
Backups
1. Whiteflame
2. Greyparrot (diary)
3.lunatic (heaven/hell)
4. Pie (diary)
5. Casey ( heaven/hell)
6. Mharman (heaven/hell)
7. Vader (diary)
8. Earth (heaven/hell)
9. Owen (diary)
10. Banana (heaven/hell)
11. Joebob
12. Austin (since I will start this on Sunday)
Backups
1. Whiteflame
Created:
Posted in:
Also you kind of have to go on personal experience you don't technically know that anything outside of your personal experience is real.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
The boss should be competent enough to understand how their department works. If they don't, then they have no concept for how their orders will be implemented, which is something any boss should know before requiring a staff that is already overworked and understaffed to implement an idea they've never tried before.
They aren't understaffed. Did you see Elon bringing up how employee retirements go because the process isn't automated?
Besides that. If we have an organization that sucks, I wouldn't think you need to know how it works. You need to know how it should work and make it work that way.
I always went into new places with a vision for how things should work and then made them work that way.
So by this logic, her desire to shake things up comes before any degree of competence to actually handle the position. Not how I see it, but at least I understand.
As somebody who shakes things up it's my experience that we are competent people. The leaders who are bad usually do not shake things up. Some are micro managers, most are just trying to do as little as they can get away with it but none seem to be those looking to make big sweeping changes.
Both of these are fallacious arguments based on your personal experience rather than anything about Tulsi Gabbard herself that demonstrates your point.
Fair enough but I will say that when you read history books it's rarely the people who are satisfied with the status quo that go down as great leaders. I know to a certain extent you dismiss the great man theory of history but these history books seem to agree with the great man theory.
As far as scale whether billion dollar industry or some small club of 5 people, it's my beliefs that a correct philosophy should scale so what's true on very small scales should be replicable at large ones and visa versa.
If you are good at selling to an audience of 1000 your pitch should work as well on an audience of one or visa versa.
Created:
Posted in:
1. Savant (diary)
2. Greyparrot (diary)
3.lunatic (heaven/hell)
4. Pie (diary)
5. Casey ( heaven/hell)
6. Mharman (heaven/hell)
7. Vader (diary)
8. Earth (heaven/hell)
9. Owen (diary)
10. Banana (heaven/hell)
11.
12.
Backups
1. Whiteflame
2. Austin (until Sunday)
Backups to the backups
1.
2.
Backups to the backups of the backups.
1. Joebob
2. Greyparrot (diary)
3.lunatic (heaven/hell)
4. Pie (diary)
5. Casey ( heaven/hell)
6. Mharman (heaven/hell)
7. Vader (diary)
8. Earth (heaven/hell)
9. Owen (diary)
10. Banana (heaven/hell)
11.
12.
Backups
1. Whiteflame
2. Austin (until Sunday)
Backups to the backups
1.
2.
Backups to the backups of the backups.
1. Joebob
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
Assuming that sticking it to the man is my priority, I'd want someone who knows the ins and outs of their department, someone who can utilize that apparatus to its fullest.
Your the boss you just tell people what to do. Make orders.
I don't see any current Democrats nominated. Especially given that the nominees who are former Democrats have made a point of aligning themselves with the opposing party
The opposing party presidential candidate not party. This is a coalition government forming ideals we can all get behind like eradicating fraud and abuse.
I don't think her opposition to FISA courts made her a good choice in and of itself, and aside from personal agreement with some of her aims, I don't see much reasoning from you for why she was a good candidate.
My reasoning is that I don't see many people better than her that will shake things up. If everything is shit than you know shaking things up is good.
I always vote based on who will shake things up.
I shake things up and when I am in positions to run things I see few people who get better results than me and I have the numbers to prove it. Granted I am managing staffs of less than 50 people when I do it.
I can only conclude that since I am the best at increasing profits and productivity and I shake things up, than others who shake things up are also supremely competent.
I always had the best numbers in whatever district I was in and I shake things up.
Created:
Posted in:
Who do you as a liberal trust more to stick it to the man?
Outsider rebels like Gabbard and RFK who are led by ideology or uncontroversial beurocrats
Created: