Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 147: Banned From The Mall

(+) Yeah! (+)

trdl23 posted...

Marxist communism would have sucked too, possibly more since it would lead to a hilariously weak central government as well, but let's go a little deeper than "there's a sickle and hammer so he embodies Marx."

Question since youve studied it

How does Marxism purport to enforce full co-operation WITHOUT a strong central government?

Thats been my issue. I dont see how it works if not everyone buys in. Seems ripe for overthrow
---

Jakyl25 posted...

SSJBGenkiDama posted...

I'm arguing he is as close to infallible as any human ever born except Christ.

What sells him short? The interracial sex?

The not being God...

Jakyl25 posted...

Seph, being philosophically lazy, stops at appeal to authority and can explain his beliefs no further

This is when you know somebody isn't worth even a second of your time

He doesn't have any conviction. He doesn't know why he believes what he does.

It's literally just "X said so."

That is not the sign of an intelligent man.
---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

Do you think Thomas Jefferson was religious?

He was at least a deist, wasn't he? It's right in the declaration of independence that all men are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights. Where else would the rights come from?

Stalin collectivized the fuck out of agriculture and industry, had a planned economy, encouraged global revolution (prior to WWII), and, arguably, was trying to industrialize the country to the point that it would be able to move along to the tune of Marx's stages of history. At the very least, he probably believed in the theory of dialectical materialism.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

trdl23 posted...

Marxist communism would have sucked too, possibly more since it would lead to a hilariously weak central government as well, but let's go a little deeper than "there's a sickle and hammer so he embodies Marx."

Question since youve studied it

How does Marxism purport to enforce full co-operation WITHOUT a strong central government?

Thats been my issue. I dont see how it works if not everyone buys in. Seems ripe for overthrow

That's the inherent trouble; I don't think it can. On the other hand, the proletariat that rose up against the "bourgeoisie" are ready to strike again if it goes too far, so I hypothesize (and it is strictly that, I'm not a history major let alone a PhD) that the only way to keep it in a commune-like setting would be to keep the vast majority of the power local and have communities interact with each other with the central government basically playing mediator/arbitrator. Like I said, naivety.

Take that with a heap of salt. I'm much more certain of what was than I am of what could have been.

NFUN posted...

Stalin collectivized the fuck out of agriculture and industry, had a planned economy, encouraged global revolution (prior to WWII), and, arguably, was trying to industrialize the country to the point that it would be able to move along to the tune of Marx's stages of history. At the very least, he probably believed in the theory of dialectical materialism.

There was a modicum, like I said. It's just a matter of "how similar was this to monarchy vs. Marx." He was probably enough of an egomaniac to think he could retcon history and follow Marx's formula with himself at the helm, but it was bullshit.

He certainly purported to support the last bit, though that's a bit higher level than I went, so it's possible I'm missing something.
---

You're defining communism too narrowly. Stalin wasn't a Marxist; he was a Stalinist. He took a lot of Marx's ideas and put his own spin on things. If you want to define capitalism as that which was purely envisioned by Adam Smith, no country is capitalist either. If you want to go that route, then fine. Stalin was socialist.
---

man, the moore stuff today is just hilarious. moore's wife is nuts.
---

---

I feel like whoever put that together could've at least taken the extra step to replace Hillary Clinton with Pepe Silvia.
---

NFUN posted...

You're defining communism too narrowly. Stalin wasn't a Marxist; he was a Stalinist. He took a lot of Marx's ideas and put his own spin on things. If you want to define capitalism as that which was purely envisioned by Adam Smith, no country is capitalist either. If you want to go that route, then fine. Stalin was socialist.

Huh, I hadn't considered this angle. I'm not sure I agree with it, but it's something to chew on.

Glad we could have this conversation maturely. I wish I got more of these.
---

https://twitter.com/joshtpm/status/930638894084837376

looks like even hannity is out now
---

FFDragon posted...

CAROL! CAROL!

this is like the fourth time this episode has popped up for me in two days
---

all work and no ads make hannity a sad boy
---

how bad does it have to be for Hannity to turn on you
---

transience posted...

how bad does it have to be for Hannity to turn on you

Pretty dang bad
---

Meanwhile, Shep Smith does a nice job explaining why all of his other colleagues are absolutely crazy about the Uranium One deal.

https://twitter.com/mmfa/status/930551622849118208
---

whoa

a... well researched and unspun legitimate piece of journalism on fox news

I'm actually sort of impressed.
---

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/930346433177378817

Bragging about sub-50 approval

Good to have you back Donny

EDIT: Its already back down to 44%. Whoops!
---

Wow, it could be in the 50s according to some people!
---

And i could be the sexiest man alive according to some people
---

FFDragon posted...

Half the country is the board, the other half is the guy
---

Neon's sig makes me wish there was a Walter in the administration.
---

https://twitter.com/lizzwinstead/status/930831093552558080

Moore paying the mall that hush money.
---

I'm hearing they're gonna try to write in Jeff Sessions for his own seat back.

Oy vey.
---

That way someone who isn't recused but is still woefully out of his element can be the AG?
---

Well that would be a terrible idea. They'd just split all the Republican votes between Sessions and the chodes who are going to support Moore even if he diddles a kid live on stage
---

It could be their way of making sure the GOP ditches Moore, Donald's way of honorably booting Jeff for recusing himself, and Jeff's way to ideally lessen these Russian collusion talks by stepping down.

Each one of these have their drawbacks and it might not even be effective, but it's an interesting idea. Desperate times.....
---

A write-in campaign is a bit risky. In a normal election the Democrat candidate is expected to get 35-40% of the vote in Alabama so in theory vote splitting is possible, especially if more than one write-in candidate gains traction. Of course if theres a concentrated effort and Moore himself backs off then winning as a write-in is possible.
---

Articles of impeachment formally submitted. Obviously won't amount to anything, but it's good that they're out there.
---

no it's dumb

there is a special investigation going on

let them finish before cannonballing in
---

FFDragon posted...

no it's dumb

there is a special investigation going on

let them finish before cannonballing in

^
---

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/930815626460921856

Do you think the three UCLA Basketball Players will say thank you President Trump? They were headed for 10 years in jail!

What a dork
---

His ego is so fuckin fragile, lmao

My god can you even imagine the response if Obama said some shit like "Is anyone going to thank me?"
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

His ego is so fuckin fragile, lmao

My god can you even imagine the response if Obama said some shit like "Is anyone going to thank me?"

Even worse -- the coach published a statement thanking Trump before he tweeted that.

Guess that wasn't enough for him!
---

I have a thought experiment, and I'd very much like someone to poke some holes in my logic:

Premise A - The right for citizens to bear arms is vital because the only recourse a people has against a tyrannical government is armed resistance.

Premise B - Gun control laws do not work to prevent criminals from accessing firearms because criminals are already willing to break the law and will circumvent gun control laws to get the guns they need to carry out their crimes.

Premise C - By definition, if you carry out armed resistance against your government (even a tyrannical one) you are a criminal committing treason.

Therefore, if the time comes when citizens must resist a tyrannical government via armed resistance (thereby making them criminals committing treason) it will not matter how many guns they have before engaging in that armed resistance - by Premise B, they will have little trouble acquiring the weapons they need to carry out their rebellion.

Therefore, gun control laws do not serve to inhibit the people's ability to violently resist a tyrannical government.

Therefore, if those gun control laws could serve to save even a single life it is a moral imperative to put them into place.
---

I think most people arguing against your position would argue against Premise C.
---

The flaw in your logic is the difference in criminality.

If guns were illegal, yes criminals would still get guns, but there would still be FEWER criminals with guns because not every potential criminal is so inclined to bother with the black market.

So the argument is the amount of lives saved by everyone having guns is worth the amount of lives that would be lost by only hardcore criminals having guns
---

Gun restrictions cause fewer guns to be in the market. This isn't an issue for criminals now because there are so few criminals. An effective armed resistance however, would cause an "influx of criminals" as you say, making guns a limiting resource and would thus make an effective armed resistance impossible.
---

xp1337 posted...

I think most people arguing against your position would argue against Premise C.

Is there a government that does not have laws against armed rebellion?
---

charmander6000 posted...

Gun restrictions cause fewer guns to be in the market. This isn't an issue for criminals now because there are so few criminals. An effective armed resistance however, would cause an "influx of criminals" as you say, making guns a limiting resource and would thus make an effective armed resistance impossible.

If there was an increase in demand for guns, the market would increase the supply to meet it.
---

Probably not, but I think most people arguing against you would claim that the technical definitions would not apply in that scenario.

alternatively look at everyone else's posts they're probably better at this than me
---

Not_an_Owl posted...

Is there a government that does not have laws against armed rebellion?

you're only criminals if you lose!
---

Not_an_Owl posted...

charmander6000 posted...

Gun restrictions cause fewer guns to be in the market. This isn't an issue for criminals now because there are so few criminals. An effective armed resistance however, would cause an "influx of criminals" as you say, making guns a limiting resource and would thus make an effective armed resistance impossible.

If there was an increase in demand for guns, the market would increase the supply to meet it.

Only in a free market. What's more likely is that the price of these guns would increase, pushing poorer people out of the rebellion.
---

charmander6000 posted...

Not_an_Owl posted...

charmander6000 posted...

Gun restrictions cause fewer guns to be in the market. This isn't an issue for criminals now because there are so few criminals. An effective armed resistance however, would cause an "influx of criminals" as you say, making guns a limiting resource and would thus make an effective armed resistance impossible.

If there was an increase in demand for guns, the market would increase the supply to meet it.

Only in a free market. What's more likely is that the price of these guns would increase, pushing poorer people out of the rebellion.

An underground black market is by definition a free market - it's all based on illegal transactions so there are no regulations.

Also, any armed rebellion on a national scale would have to have some amount of organization and resources. Individual people would most likely not be paying out of their own pockets for guns, their organization would be subsidizing at least some of the cost.
---

The black market can only get so much supply. Guns are bigger and thus harder to import than drugs and if a rebellion is going on I imagine the US government will do as much as possible to prevent guns from entering the nation.
---

Another flaw with this logic is that it doesnt matter, because Thomas Jefferson said so
---

http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2017/11/53_pastors_sign_letter_of_supp.html

That letter support Moore's wife posted on Facebook from 50 religious leaders apparently just recycled signatures the various pastors provided from before the primary and several are requesting to have their names removed.
---

Someone posted about that yesterday

These Moores really have issues with consent
---

I think the thing to say is that "supply increases to meet demand" doesn't actually say anything about the absolute number of goods transferred other than that it's more than whatever it was previously. More than a small number can still be a small number. (Or it could be a large number. But you can't justify the claim I think you're trying to make with just "supply increases")
---