Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×

34 comments

Which alternative exists? (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a week ago | (#47446261)

The cartoon appears to be stating that the stranglehold that big banks have over the federal government is the problem. I will agree that it is, indeed, part of the problem.

However I don't see any political movement that has gathered any amount of attention as having a serious plan to break that dependency. The libertarian party wants to give more power to the people with the most money, which just reinforces this problem. I have not seen any indication of the Tea Party giving a shit about it. The green party only cares about it as much as it interferes with their ability to buy pot.

Re:Which alternative exists? (1)

Arker (91948) | about a week ago | (#47447409)

"The libertarian party wants to give more power to the people with the most money, which just reinforces this problem."

That's simply not true. It's a leftie-progressive-whatever-you-call-it-this-week bullshit propaganda line and always has been.

Libertarians want to first remove power from interpersonal dealings insofar as possible, and only secondarily devolve whatever power cannot be removed entirely and spread it out as evenly as possible rather than letting it centralize and metastasize into a capitol and imperial beaureacracy.

Re:Which alternative exists? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a week ago | (#47447881)

That's simply not true. It's a leftie-progressive-whatever-you-call-it-this-week bullshit propaganda line and always has been.

It's not propaganda, it's just a judgment of the results, same way people treat communism.

Communism doesn't "want" to destroy freedom or the economy. Communists "want" to do a lot of good things, but that's markedly different from what it actually accomplishes.

Ergo, people have mostly given up on communism. When somebody claims they want communism, they get associated with "wanting" tyranny, no matter how many times the commie bastard tells us that's not what he "wants".

Re:Which alternative exists? (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a week ago | (#47448089)

The libertarian party wants to give more power to the people with the most money, which just reinforces this problem.

That's simply not true.

I will give you that there are a lot of different people who call themselves "libertarians", and there is an argument to be made that there really is no libertarian party in this country - or at least, none that can possibly encompass the values of all the people who call themselves libertarians.

However, the most vocal "libertarian" politician - and the one with the most vocal and dedicated followers - is Ron Paul. His platform, beyond any shadow of a doubt, embraces the values that I outlined above. If you want to claim that he is not a true libertarian, you can make that argument.

Re:Which alternative exists? (0)

Arker (91948) | about a week ago | (#47448441)

"there is an argument to be made that there really is no libertarian party in this country - or at least, none that can possibly encompass the values of all the people who call themselves libertarians."

To a degree that is true, but less so of the LP than any other parties we can compare it to. The LP platform has remained remarkably consistent for decades, and there is little in any incarnation of it that many libertarians would have more than minor quibbles with.

"His platform, beyond any shadow of a doubt, embraces the values that I outlined above."

You are, beyond any shadow of a doubt, wrong. It's not a near miss, you are not even on the same planet.

Re:Which alternative exists? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a week ago | (#47448951)

To a degree that is true, but less so of the LP than any other parties we can compare it to. The LP platform has remained remarkably consistent for decades, and there is little in any incarnation of it that many libertarians would have more than minor quibbles with.

That's not a good thing. You're telling me there's a whole bunch of people who share similar consistent values, and have worked for decades (if not longer, the values of LP existed before the official party existed) promoting those values, and yet still have consistently failed to stop the growing government, who is apparently much less coherent or capable of satisfying its members

Car analogy: you're saying your brand of cars are better than the competition, yet said inferior competition is the one that has slowly but surely rose to dominance on the market.

Re:Which alternative exists? (1)

Arker (91948) | about a week ago | (#47449693)

"That's not a good thing. You're telling me there's a whole bunch of people who share similar consistent values, and have worked for decades (if not longer, the values of LP existed before the official party existed) promoting those values, and yet still have consistently failed to stop the growing government, who is apparently much less coherent or capable of satisfying its members"

The government has the advantage of being able to take money out of our pocket, and spend it against us, more or less at-will.

And we could go on for ages about all the other ways the Duopoly party is entrenched and what a massive disadvantage we started at - and anyone who wants any sort of change in this country starts at.

All considered, I would say we have actually done very well. Don't forget we won several Republican primaries last time and were only defeated with the most shameless series of dirty tricks seen at a national convention since '68, if not before.

Yes, it's bad news that we havent won yet, and arent likely to win immediately, but the good news is that momentum is on our side now, and so are the majority of the american people, on several of our most important issues.

The cup may be half empty but that means it's half full. A few decades ago that was nowhere near true.

Re:Which alternative exists? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a week ago | (#47450429)

Yes, it's bad news that we havent won yet, and arent likely to win immediately, but the good news is that momentum is on our side now, and so are the majority of the american people, on several of our most important issues.

I disagree. I see it more like global warming. Those victories are like the occasional cold spells we get in certain places. They can and do happen, but the overall trend has been upward.

The cup may be half empty but that means it's half full. A few decades ago that was nowhere

You're technically right that the cup has more in it than before, but the cup itself isn't static. The way I see it, the cup grows faster than you can fill it up.

For example, the Internet. The Internet gave us freedom to exchange information and made it difficult to hide dirty secrets, but the same technologies that enabled the Internet also enables the NSA to build huge spy networks.

Re:Which alternative exists? (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a week ago | (#47450467)

His platform, beyond any shadow of a doubt, embraces the values that I outlined above.

You are, beyond any shadow of a doubt, wrong. It's not a near miss, you are not even on the same planet.

In what way? The platforms that I see Ron Paul preach about the most often all share the common connection of reducing the tax burden of the top earners, while simultaneously removing protections and opportunities of the rest. I certainly don't see how any of his platforms do anything towards actually reducing the power that big business - and big banking in particular - has over government. Ending the dollar for a gold standard (or otherwise recoupling the two) is only smoke and mirrors.

Re:Which alternative exists? (0)

Arker (91948) | about a week ago | (#47450811)

"The platforms that I see Ron Paul preach about the most often all share the common connection of reducing the tax burden of the top earners"

Yes, EARNERS. People that work for their money. They should get to keep more of it. THAT is something libertarians both left and right agree on.

What you claimed was "The libertarian party wants to give more power to the people with the most money."

These two things are not the same thing. Not even CLOSE to the same thing.

The people with the most money are the ones that have effective control of; first and foremost, the Federal Reserve, the large banks, and the companies that receive the bulk of our 'defense' and 'law enforcement' budgets. They may or may not have high income - one does not need income when one controls capital.

What you are doing is conflating the guy that's out there working his tail off to be the best in his field, draw a salary proportionate, and desperately hoping to retire in time to enjoy raising a family; with the guy that can and does buy and sell Senators and has never had to work for a living.

The other side of Pauls platform is about reducing the power of the Fed, reducing the power up for grabs to regulatory capture, reducing the resources devoted to corporate welfare. That's how you actually do something about the people that have it all.

Punitive taxation on incomes is easy for them to evade, and only hurts the innocent.

Re:Which alternative exists? (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a week ago | (#47451753)

Yes, EARNERS. People that work for their money. They should get to keep more of it.

Are you a subscriber of the delusional belief that we don't already have the most regressive system of taxation in the industrialized world? Your statement certainly seems to suggest that you are.

Which leads back to the fact that Paul's ambitions only concentrate more power into the hands of the powerful. In this country, money is power. When the people who hold the most money get more of it, they only become more powerful. Even more so, they are further given more ability to prevent others from accumulating either.

What you claimed was "The libertarian party wants to give more power to the people with the most money."

These two things are not the same thing. Not even CLOSE to the same thing.

You're dead wrong on that one. In this country power belongs to those who have money. The rest are left pretending that they can fight for scraps.

The other side of Pauls platform is about reducing the power of the Fed, reducing the power up for grabs to regulatory capture, reducing the resources devoted to corporate welfare.

The first part is certainly a claim straight from Paul's platform. The second is conjecture, and the third is fantasy.

Even if you shut down the fed this afternoon you would still have powerful banks and powerful corporations. You would still have a deeply regressive system of taxation and a power structure based on suppression of the lower economic classes. None of that would change, and corporate welfare wouldn't go away either.

Re:Which alternative exists? (0)

Arker (91948) | about a week ago | (#47453391)

Can you really have so much trouble understanding the difference between WEALTH and INCOME?

Let's try a water analogy. One lake has 10million gallons of water in storage, and at the moment has no water flowing into it at all. The other is essentially dry, with a mere 500 gallons available. It is receiving water at a rate of 500 gallons/hour, however it is currently releasing 498 gallons/hour to satisfy downstream obligations.

Which of these two lakes controls more water?

Re:Which alternative exists? (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a week ago | (#47453863)

Can you really have so much trouble understanding the difference between WEALTH and INCOME?

I am fully aware of the difference. Are you aware of the fact that your response is a complete non-sequitur? I'm sorry that I hurt your feelings so deeply that you couldn't bring yourself to actually respond to my post and instead tried to insult my intellect.

If you'd like to actually discuss politics, feel free to try again.

Re:Which alternative exists? (0)

Arker (91948) | about a week ago | (#47454963)

If you do understand the difference then you were clearly just trolling me.

Sorry to have taken you seriously, carry on.

Re:Which alternative exists? (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a week ago | (#47456235)

You don't take facts well. Perhaps that is why you are so eager to endorse the intents of the cult of Ron Paul without considering the consequences of the same.

Re:Which alternative exists? (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a week ago | (#47462641)

damn_registrars has demonstrated himself false to me on several occasions.

Re:Which alternative exists? (1)

unitron (5733) | about a week ago | (#47463837)

...

Which of these two lakes controls more water?

Instantaneously, or over a specified period of time?

Re:Which alternative exists? (1)

unitron (5733) | about a week ago | (#47463827)

"Top earners" only equals "People that work for their money" if you expand the definition of "work" to include "got born to rich parents and inherited lots of stocks and bonds and all the right social connections".

Being born on 3rd base does not make you one of the the all-time best hitters even if you do wind up crossing home plate.

The shoes are us (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about a week ago | (#47446285)

Even knowing that, Republicans will vote for Republicans and Democrats for Democrats and Libertarians for people who are not libertarian. Even knowing they're just putting the yin and yang into those crushing boots, they will continue to believe if they could only defeat other leg, once and for all, their lives would be glorious.

The one thing a Libertarian cartoonist won't tell you though, is if you follow those boots up to the legs, and the legs up to the pockets and the pockets up to the head, you will find the corporate wizard pulling the levers, whispering, "God...guns...gay rights...family values...free markets...climate change...Sarah Palin...Michael Moore...liebruls...wingnuts..." into the megaphone. He's a wizened little man, looks a lot like Sheldon Adleson, in fact, whose own legs have withered. He's the subject of the Picture of Dorian Gray. Call it, "The Picture of John Galt". Corrupt, suppurating and certain of his position among The Elect. Plump and parasitic.

It's so easy to blame team red or team blue, but only because The Commissioner likes to keep our attention focused on the heels and away from the head.

Re:The shoes are us (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a week ago | (#47454747)

So, you're going with the Alinsky Rule #12 play? Really? That's it? Are you really so bereft of imagination?

Re:The shoes are us (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about a week ago | (#47455637)

So, you're going with the Alinsky Rule #12 play?

I'll have to go look that one up. I'm afraid I don't know Alinsky as well as you do.

Me, I'm more of a Benjamin Franklin guy when it comes to Rules for Radicals. But I guess it's just a matter of choice.

Re:The shoes are us (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a week ago | (#47462673)

You so coy!

wrong (1)

Bill Dog (726542) | about a week ago | (#47446431)

That Left vs. Right is only or mostly a distraction is a Leftie/Libertarian tactic. They are of course highly distinctly opposing philosophies, even if the extreme divide between the philosophies is not fully represented in Congress.

I don't know about the banks, but corporations are only trying to buy favor in regulations and subsidies, so that they can be more successful. This is tyranny in that it's anti-competitive and hurts the average citizen, but is nowhere near where the vast majority of the tyranny we're experiencing nowadays is coming from: The GOP's progressivism towards more and more perfect national security, and the Left's progressivism towards more and more perfect outcomes in almost everything in general.

TL;DR: That cartoon pushes the standard commie line that the institutions of capitalism are our biggest problem.

p.s. What it does get right is that, since neither major party cares one whit about libertarianism, in that sense it's meaningless which one you vote for, because neither will advance that cause. (But then that's hardly the only meaningful factor, whereupon there becomes a huge difference between the parties.)

Nothing will change... (2)

RailGunner (554645) | about a week ago | (#47448759)

until He comes back. Until then, we will continue our march into a depraved, degenerate society fully embracing the culture of death.

Re:Nothing will change... (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a week ago | (#47454755)

I think a read of the Old Testament histories will show that history is more of a sinusoid, prior to His return, and the Really Big Dip at the end.

Re:Nothing will change... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a week ago | (#47456089)

I think a read of the Old Testament histories will show that history is more of a sinusoid, prior to His return, and the Really Big Dip at the end.

Of course. Where else did you think Marx and the progressives the got their ideas from?

History is a sinusoid class war between the rich and poor, the haves and have-nots, etc
That is, until He, Big Brother, arrives to bring us Communism, the final heaven for humanity!

Re:Nothing will change... (1)

RailGunner (554645) | about a week ago | (#47456689)

I think we're in the really big dip at the end.

It's a little shocking how depraved the culture is getting and how fast it's getting there.

Re:Nothing will change... (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a week ago | (#47462633)

The only things new under the sun are the abortions and gender re-assignments.
But those evils don't expose any fresh hell in the human heart.

Re:Nothing will change... (2)

RailGunner (554645) | about a week ago | (#47467407)

No, but the societal acceptance of these evils -- and the scale of the acceptance, moving on to promotion and calling vices virtues, and the downright fascist hostility to anyone who doesn't share this outlook, is downright breathtaking.

Can anyone imagine a mob getting a CEO fired because he donated $1K to a political cause they didn't like even just 5 years ago? I can't, and it's why I'm still stunned Mozilla fired Eich... for the "crime" of having religious beliefs. And it's not just CEO's -- Chase bank is asking it's employees if they are members of or allies of the "LGBT Community". No word on what happens if the employee says "I don't care what you do in your bedroom, but it's not a marriage." They'll probably get fired and liberals like the dipshits we have around here will cheer this saying something along the lines of "Good! We should not tolerate such intolerance!"

Can anyone imagine just 5 years ago the decay (and acceptance of sin) we're seeing in the American Protestant Church? The gay marriage agenda is nothing more than a play from Marx's book on how to destroy the Church -- by launching a full frontal assault on the nuclear Family.

As an aside, I'm seeing a trend start -- as Protestant denominations become more and more secular, a good number of those, shall we say, conservative members, are coming home to the Catholic Church.

The Episcopaleans, the Anglicans... these denominations are falling -- and many members who believe are becoming Catholic.

Most people, I think, sense it -- we've fallen off the final cliff. The landing is going to be brutal. As long as we're falling, though, there's still time to brace and prepare.

But when the shit hits the fan -- and it will -- there will be Hell to pay. God has a limit to how much offense He will take, and His Judgment will be unleashed.

Re:Nothing will change... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 5 days ago | (#47468921)

Can anyone imagine a mob getting a CEO fired... for the "crime" of having religious beliefs

I sure can. The church has done much worse in the past. The church fired people too, literally. They burned the witches and heathens and heretics. Their lives were taken, not just their jobs.

So really, merely asking them to leave (actually, he resigned himself) is a huge improvement. People are doing the opposite of calling vices virtues. They're truly living up to the Lord's word: he who have no sin may cast the first stone. Judge not, lest ye be judged. If God is angry with the gays, He will judge them. It is not our place to judge.

Re:Nothing will change... (2)

RailGunner (554645) | 4 days ago | (#47476821)

So really, merely asking them to leave

"Quit before we fire you, and we'll give you a severance package, otherwise, you get nothing" -- hardly a choice there...

The church has done much worse in the past.

So, because a human institution (though divinely inspired by the Holy Spirit, it's still a human institution) did bad things in it's History -- everything should be thrown out.

You're advocating throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Which is fine, but considering the Catholic Church is what created the first Schools and Hospitals -- well, you better close those right now (or not use either) because someone may have burned a witch 500 years ago.

People are doing the opposite of calling vices virtues.

Well this is just complete BS. Homosexual contact (not the attraction, but the sexual contact) is sinful. It's a vice. The virtue would be abstinence -- in other words, celibacy. Which is the same virtue for all unmarried people.

But that's not what the current culture says -- it says, well, "be who you are" and promoted the idea that a deviant behavior is mainstream and one that should be celebrated. I'm not advocating judging gays, I would not support any law that restricts what two consenting adults do in their bedroom -- but stating that the relationship is a marriage is folly, and that it's a virtue to be aspired to (gay marriage) is completely backwards.

Society has fallen far, and very fast, from the way God intended it to be.

And just like Sodom and Gomorrah, the Roman Empire, and Babylon before it, God's judgment WILL be poured out.

The barbarians are at the gates, you just don't realize it.

Re:Nothing will change... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 4 days ago | (#47481509)

So, because a human institution (though divinely inspired by the Holy Spirit, it's still a human institution) did bad things in it's History -- everything should be thrown out.

I didn't say that. You asked if you can imagine, and I said yes, I can imagine, because we humans did do worst in the past.

You're advocating throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

No I am not. Again, you asked if one can imagine, I answered yes. You, on the other hand...

Which is fine, but considering the Catholic Church is what created the first Schools and Hospitals

...is pulling the old Lefty statist rhetoric that without the church (government), we might not have had [good thing].

But that's not what the current culture says -- it says, well, "be who you are" and promoted the idea that a deviant behavior is mainstream and one that should be celebrated. I'm not advocating judging gays, I would not support any law that restricts what two consenting adults do in their bedroom -- but stating that the relationship is a marriage is folly, and that it's a virtue to be aspired to (gay marriage) is completely backwards.

No, what you say is BS. You said it yourself: the act of homosexual contact is the sin. "Marriage" isn't a sin. Calling something marriage isn't a sin. It is your own dirty mind that thinks marriage "encourages" or "celebrates" sinful behavior.

I hate to break it to you: but lots of people, hetero, homo, atheists, people not of your religion, are ALREADY HAVING PREMARITAL SEX. The law was never in the way for them to sin.

When they're talking about "marriage", they want the other - mostly legal - reasons.

Furthermore, your religion doesn't own the word marriage. You can have an opinion, but you have no authority to dictate what the rest of society what it recognizes as marriage. That is judging, through and through.

It is your logic that is twisted and backwards. By your logic, you have to be against marriage between atheists, or those belonging to a different religion.

And just like Sodom and Gomorrah, the Roman Empire, and Babylon before it, God's judgment WILL be poured out.

Again, notice how it's GOD'S judgment, not man's judgment. So sorry, you're wrong, you just don't realize it.

Re:Nothing will change... (2)

RailGunner (554645) | 3 days ago | (#47484529)

Furthermore, your religion doesn't own the word marriage.

Anything that is not a Sacramental Marriage is not a marriage.

The problem I have with that cartoon,... (1)

unitron (5733) | about a week ago | (#47463863)

...although I don't claim to know the heart of mind of the cartoonist and am not accusing them of anything, is that the phrase "Global Elite Bankers" immediately sets me to looking around for someone with a copy of "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" who doesn't know, or refuses to believe, that it was a hoax.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...