Your opinion of this person?

[white trash heroes]

my main problem with democracy is mostly economic. that is, a) people don't have a rational reason to be informed about decisions they are making for other people (see bryan caplan's work although I'm not a huge fan of him ideological) and b) people have that natural tendency to want to vote themselves benefits beyond the capacity of the state to provide. that doesn't mean i believe in some laissez faire bootstraps ideology but we've all seen how this can and has played out.

it is interesting you are making the argument of 'elitism' though. do you object to the current system on the grounds it isn't direct? i would think that you would be not a fan of referenda and all that given how things have played out in a lot of the western states...

[white trash heroes]

i think its just symptomatic of the bogus 'american exceptionalist/greatest nation ever' meme. thats why i think we're going to really burn, impossible to address problems if you get shouted down. the only people that understand the problem are really the fringes.

     Oh, the country will burn. I have a couple of ideas for how to stop it, but they would never work. Such is life.

democracy doesn't work

What is your suggestion for government then, wise one? Surely, an element of popular sovereignty is necessary for the state to be just.

why does popularity = morality? i don't see how something like venezuela or zimbabwe or various majority shia areas would be desirable to have a democracies. indeed democracy is the last thing you would want for a lot of places. as for government it depends on circumstances. i have some sympathies for monarchy/benign aristocracy for pragmatic reasons that i've elaborated on but obviously such a thing is very hard to sell and not culturally relevant. restricting the franchise to people that can pass a civics test and making voting much more localized is one possible reform i've suggested. although i suspect straha and some of the formalists have a point in terms of their  (relatively) undemocratic, corporate state model. a state that strives to actually produce things of value and offers services to citizen-shareholders while avoiding the invasiveness of both modern democracy and totalitarianism could be an improvement over now.

Sup Aristotle. (or Hobbes, I guess)

very astute, those are obvious influences.

Really though, an element of popular sovereignty is necessary for the state to be moral: it's dealing with important questions intrinsic to the well being of its citizens. They deserve to have a formalized say and agency over their lives. They deserve to have a decision making body that isn't determined by power alone, which ultimately is what gets to call the shots in any elitist system. At the very least, the public deserves to decide what the structure of their government will be at the start and the ability for initiatives and the like if that constitution is to be changed. These questions of government are too important and all-encompassing to be left to a few people who have no real consequences for their actions.

as opposed to the many who feel no consequence for their actions,and are encouraged because the establishment assume the state will just print or borrow the difference indefinitely? i already posted hans hermann hoppe before, he did a decent job going into the flaws associated with the election cycle and how democracy inherently favors short-term decision making compared to older alternatives.

I don't understand how you could read your suggestions and not see the fallacies in inherent in them. Restricting it to a certain class of people will only serve to have them entrench their interests and nothing more.

that might be true to an extent. but really under the present system to the extent the voter matters (and obviously lobbies and gerrymandering reduces a lot of that here), voting has become a zero sum game.

edit: what I'm really trying to say is that you probably have a twisted view of human nature for you to hold these archaic views. That sounds mean but it isn't really, I can sympathize at times with your ideas but the fact that they only work when *certain* people are in power shows how tailored there are.

honest liberals tend to admit that liberal democracy only works under certain conditions. i.e. you need a highly informed population, certain values, etc. of course liberals tend to operate under the bizarre assumption of 'equality' and that fundamentally people all value the same things and would if only they were informed. hence the obsession with 'awareness' domestically and spreading 'democracy' to peoples that have never known it.

also note that in practice western liberalism tends to suppress a lot of opinions. for an idea of what i mean look at the prevalence of hate speech laws and speech codes in most of the west and attempts to marginalize the anti liberal elements. also look at how the government in the us is structured.. yes we avoid a lot of the more overt censorship of the western europeans but our government was deliberately designed to discourage challenges to the wealthy, liberal establishment from the get go. even what i have proposed is in a sense, more of a reactionary

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

my main problem with democracy is mostly economic. that is, a) people don't have a rational reason to be informed about decisions they are making for other people (see bryan caplan's work although I'm not a huge fan of him ideological) and b) people have that natural tendency to want to vote themselves benefits beyond the capacity of the state to provide. that doesn't mean i believe in some laissez faire bootstraps ideology but we've all seen how this can and has played out.

it is interesting you are making the argument of 'elitism' though. do you object to the current system on the grounds it isn't direct? i would think that you would be not a fan of referenda and all that given how things have played out in a lot of the western states...

1. Wouldn't that apply to free market economies as well then?
2. Aren't there mechanisms to prevent this?
3. Surely you'd agree that some decisions do need to be made by some sort of third-party arbiter with regards to economics and some framework should be made?

In lots of aspects, yes. One class has far more ability to influence the decisions of the government than the others based off of their disproportionate voice that is enhanced by income. This even plays a role in countries with strict electoral financing rules: the elite just does it wants when it is in office and is shielded from consequences due to their already high stature and their insulation from the rest of society. I am not in favor of initiatives that target people's rights or make specific laws but when it comes to the broad framework of governance in this country, I'm very much in favor of them.

[opebo]

     Clearly, everyone who lives within their means & does not whine about the lack of a free ride is an Uncle Tom. Try harder next time.

It is the rich who get the free ride, PiT, only the rich - that is what capitalism is all about.

     The economy also encourages wasting money on frivolities. If you look at the average person's budget, much of what they spend is wasted on expensive gadgets & oversized portions. Most people are stupid & easily led into making poor decisions that worsen their station. I'm not immune to this either, but I strive to improve.

PiT, this is utter nonsense - working class people spend all their money on housing, transport, and food.  They typically have no frivolities - nowadays gadgets are not expensive compared to housing and transport, and 'oversized portions' - what the devil are you talking about?  You mean they ate three peanut butter sandwiches instead of one? 

[opebo]

my main problem with democracy is... people have that natural tendency to want to vote themselves benefits beyond the capacity of the state to provide.

In that case, how do you explain that after decades of supposed democracy, nearly all economic benefits are still the privilege of the owning elite who represent only at the very most half a percent of all votes cast?

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

@ mint I agree with your post "certain" values. My idealized form of liberal democracy is an ideology specifically tailored for western countries. Most other cultural centers will have to find a version of it that works for them but still manages to protect certain freedoms and rights. We've seen how that process works and I think the trends are generally positive. However my posts are in relation to a specific framework that tries to maximize popular sovereignty, equality of economic opportunity/a mitigation of the lottery of birth and individual agency. This can be achieved in a variety of ways through many different kinds of systems. I happen to prefer the one that works for my own cultural sphere (which really isn't America if you haven't noticed). I also support hate speech laws and the like because I find those views to be abhorrent and against the spirit of free speech as long as those laws are reasonable.

As for the rest of your post, I tend to agree which is why I support built in mechanisms like a central bank and automatic programs that act counter-cyclically. I'd even support some sort of balanced budget amendment if it was balanced with strong economic law and some flexibility in times of crisis.

[white trash heroes]

my main problem with democracy is mostly economic. that is, a) people don't have a rational reason to be informed about decisions they are making for other people (see bryan caplan's work although I'm not a huge fan of him ideological) and b) people have that natural tendency to want to vote themselves benefits beyond the capacity of the state to provide. that doesn't mean i believe in some laissez faire bootstraps ideology but we've all seen how this can and has played out.

it is interesting you are making the argument of 'elitism' though. do you object to the current system on the grounds it isn't direct? i would think that you would be not a fan of referenda and all that given how things have played out in a lot of the western states...

1. Wouldn't that apply to free market economies as well then?

obviously there are externalities and irrational exuberance, sure. and to some extent i think that needs to be regulated. but what markets can do and what governments can do are very different in scale. only western governments working in conjunction with the bankers could have produced something as monstrous as the derivatives trade for example. besides people tend to be better gauges of their own needs than other people.

2. Aren't there mechanisms to prevent this?

are there? i don't see any. look at most of the usa, the piigs, etc. granted a lot of that was again the result of banker fraud and quasi-privatization (classic example being wisconsin) but there's definitely that drive to make unsustainable promises on the part of politicians. we can almost all agree that certain services should be provided by the state by now, even a lot of the right when pressed.. but restraint is not rewarded. even

3. Surely you'd agree that some decisions do need to be made by some sort of third-party arbiter with regards to economics and some framework should be made?

that depends on what you mean.

i'll address the rest of your points when i'm not cramming for exams.

[Progressive Realist]

Democracy is incompatible with capitalism.

[Progressive Realist]

     A good person, & emblematic of the right kind of attitude.

How so? The whole point of him posting that is to show his superiority to everyone who doesn't fit into that particular box he sets himself. Why else boast of going to be in the 1%? I mean who does that, really?

     I understood his "I am not the 99%" bit to be declaring that he does not feel solidarity with the occupier crowd, not necessarily that he is the 1%. Of course, such subtleties can be difficult to communicate over the internet.

     The way I see it, so many people today suffer from a need for instant gratification & an inability to take responsibility. His lifestyle demonstrates a great deal of self-control and responsibility. I'll admit that his tone is slightly patronizing, but I still find his story to be something intensely admirable.

massa treats me real good! i don't know what all y'all is complaining about

     Clearly, everyone who lives within their means & does not whine about the lack of a free ride is an Uncle Tom. Try harder next time.

thats not what i was actually implying. besides how are people supposed to 'live within their means' when the entire economy discourages savings thanks to high inflation and is based on consumption? don't you know your own side's talking points.

     The economy also encourages wasting money on frivolities. If you look at the average person's budget, much of what they spend is wasted on expensive gadgets & oversized portions. Most people are stupid & easily led into making poor decisions that worsen their station. I'm not immune to this either, but I strive to improve.

Yeah, those stupid unwashed masses. It's not like they are conditioned by society or anything (a society that elevates wealth and consumption, but also blames the individual for social failures).

[Ѕenator Αverroës]

Mint and opebo have it right. I want to especially point out opebo's reply to Pit. Even for a prole, a cell phone, computer, or x-box is affordable. Food, housing, transportation, healthcare, and education are more difficult to manage.

[Lief]

massa treats me real good! i don't know what all y'all is complaining about

is really all that needs to be said about this delusional idiot with the sign.

[opebo]

Democracy is incompatible with capitalism.

Apparently it is.

[dead0man]

My favorite part is the instant knee jerk hatred the left has for this guy/gal.  Hard work and thinking things through doesn't work for 100% of people who try it, but it does for 90....95% of them.  You can keep telling yourself it doesn't, I'm sure it makes you feel better.

You may now return to your hating and recreational outrage.

[Fmr. Emperor PiT]

     A good person, & emblematic of the right kind of attitude.

How so? The whole point of him posting that is to show his superiority to everyone who doesn't fit into that particular box he sets himself. Why else boast of going to be in the 1%? I mean who does that, really?

     I understood his "I am not the 99%" bit to be declaring that he does not feel solidarity with the occupier crowd, not necessarily that he is the 1%. Of course, such subtleties can be difficult to communicate over the internet.

     The way I see it, so many people today suffer from a need for instant gratification & an inability to take responsibility. His lifestyle demonstrates a great deal of self-control and responsibility. I'll admit that his tone is slightly patronizing, but I still find his story to be something intensely admirable.

massa treats me real good! i don't know what all y'all is complaining about

     Clearly, everyone who lives within their means & does not whine about the lack of a free ride is an Uncle Tom. Try harder next time.

thats not what i was actually implying. besides how are people supposed to 'live within their means' when the entire economy discourages savings thanks to high inflation and is based on consumption? don't you know your own side's talking points.

     The economy also encourages wasting money on frivolities. If you look at the average person's budget, much of what they spend is wasted on expensive gadgets & oversized portions. Most people are stupid & easily led into making poor decisions that worsen their station. I'm not immune to this either, but I strive to improve.

Yeah, those stupid unwashed masses. It's not like they are conditioned by society or anything (a society that elevates wealth and consumption, but also blames the individual for social failures).

     I already acknowledged that society promotes this sort of behavior & that I am also prone to such impulses, same as everyone else. The problem I see is that so many of us (myself included, to some extent) continue to engage in such behavior, even after it becomes clear that it is self-destructive. Considering the strength of the drive to engage in this manner of behavior, my tendency is to admire people who can resist it.

     I suppose referring to the people who can't resist it as stupid was rather mean, though.

[Chareth Cutestory]

My favorite part is the instant knee jerk hatred the left has for this guy/gal.  Hard work and thinking things through doesn't work for 100% of people who try it, but it does for 90....95% of them.  You can keep telling yourself it doesn't, I'm sure it makes you feel better.

You may now return to your hating and recreational outrage.

Yes, if you don't understand life and all your options and responsibilities by 17, well then you're just hopelessly mentally incapable. Those foolish kids deserve to fail. Especially when they've been cajoled down this path of self destruction/assurance by every single authority figure of their most malleable and impressionable years. Inks 'em, they should've been born with more grounded parents. Their fault.

[dead0man]

That's some good hating and outrage!  And sarcasm?  Color me impressed!

[Chareth Cutestory]

Ah yes, I appreciate the accolades. Yet no real response to the concept of my retort? Color me unsurprised!

[dead0man]

A.I never suggested one knows everything by age 17 or that not knowing everything should damn you to mediocrity
2.I basically agree with the rest of your post
III.my point was that you and your friends think that hard work and not blowing your money on stupid sh**t won't get you anywhere in life, which is fine, you have a right to be wrong and the more people who sit on their ass feeling sorry for themselves the better off those that bust their ass are (and by the way, I'm much more of ass sitter than an ass buster).  You can think that way if you want, you certainly won't be the first or last.  It's a powerful defense mechanism for your id.  I was laughing at the instant anger the site of someone succeeding brings out in you.  The excuses you guys come up with.  It's all very funny to me.
Four.But there is no point in me defending this guy/gal.  Some of you will come around one day, but it won't be me that turns on that light.  Life experiences will probably do it, or possibly a change of spiel by someone you like and respect.  But not me or someone like me.

[Chareth Cutestory]

You absolutely suggested that people should have everything figured out by 17. You said "hard work and thinking things through doesn't work for 100% of people who try it, but it does for 90....95% of them", which to me (considering the context of the response to the conversation) means that whoever is struggling through college or post-graduation has brought that on themselves. 17 is the age when a vast majority of college students make their decision with regards to their higher education. And that decision is dominated by the adults in those peoples' lives. If you read what I've put into this conversation so far, I've been critical of the expectation that the generation raised by that which operated on the concepts of overconsumption and debt-induced lifestyles is supposed to know better at an adolescent age. That's all. And that's who this person is talking about. People that are being blamed for their upbringing. Also, like I said, there is more than enough to be proud of by the people who have been able to support themselves and work harder than anyone to achieve something most take for granted. That doesn't mean they're better than those who had been raised to expect their education to be handed to them. Kids don't know better and shouldn't be the ones who are attacked and held fully responsible for being frivolous and careless with their education.

The ironic aspect of all of this talking down at me is my signature quotes. I firmly believe and actively pursue the perspective of those with powerful life experiences, and yet I'm ridiculed at every crossroads for being a part of the hopeless generation I was born into. It's disgusting to me how much responsibility for what's happening now is being thrust onto the people of my age and demographic. Especially when the criticism of policy enacted before our time is brought into the conversation. Somehow it still comes down to our young kind being showered with privilege and squandering it. We were ushered into this garbage society, we didn't create it. We may not know how to fix it and may be confused as to how we got here, but passing the buck off on the lazy youth by saying things like "you can keep telling yourself it doesn't [work], I'm sure it makes you feel better" is obnoxiously patronizing and spiteful.

[Progressive Realist]

You absolutely suggested that people should have everything figured out by 17. You said "hard work and thinking things through doesn't work for 100% of people who try it, but it does for 90....95% of them", which to me (considering the context of the response to the conversation) means that whoever is struggling through college or post-graduation has brought that on themselves. 17 is the age when a vast majority of college students make their decision with regards to their higher education. And that decision is dominated by the adults in those peoples' lives. If you read what I've put into this conversation so far, I've been critical of the expectation that the generation raised by that which operated on the concepts of overconsumption and debt-induced lifestyles is supposed to know better at an adolescent age. That's all. And that's who this person is talking about. People that are being blamed for their upbringing. Also, like I said, there is more than enough to be proud of by the people who have been able to support themselves and work harder than anyone to achieve something most take for granted. That doesn't mean they're better than those who had been raised to expect their education to be handed to them. Kids don't know better and shouldn't be the ones who are attacked and held fully responsible for being frivolous and careless with their education.

The ironic aspect of all of this talking down at me is my signature quotes. I firmly believe and actively pursue the perspective of those with powerful life experiences, and yet I'm ridiculed at every crossroads for being a part of the hopeless generation I was born into. It's disgusting to me how much responsibility for what's happening now is being thrust onto the people of my age and demographic. Especially when the criticism of policy enacted before our time is brought into the conversation. Somehow it still comes down to our young kind being showered with privilege and squandering it. We were ushered into this garbage society, we didn't create it. We may not know how to fix it and may be confused as to how we got here, but passing the buck off on the lazy youth by saying things like "you can keep telling yourself it doesn't [work], I'm sure it makes you feel better" is obnoxiously patronizing and spiteful.

It's hard to take "personal responsibility" seriously when the types of people who use that phrase on a constant basis generally don't practice it.

[Chareth Cutestory]

It's hard to take "personal responsibility" seriously when the types of people who use that phrase on a constant basis generally don't practice it.

Nobody does anymore. Nothing is anybody's fault yet someone will always fix it. Our entire society and those who participate in it are to blame. But it always has to be someone else's fault. It doesn't matter how screwed we are, there's someone to blame and it's no longer an issue because they suck and now that we've established that it's not an issue we actually have to address anymore.

I take "personal responsibility seriously for myself, which is as far as anyone can take it. Once we stop thinking politically about responsibility and the game of avoiding it, our society can potentially begin to repair itself...hopefully. It's not our fault, things happened to us as a people and we've been berated into believing we are to blame by political speak and cultural manipulation. Once we actually start believing in ourselves and not the "people" that run our nation, we have a chance of beating their corporatist domination of our lifestyle choices that leads to excess and irrational spending behavior.

[Gustaf]

Democracy is incompatible with capitalism.

I think you got that one backwards. It's only compatible with capitalism.

I agree with Dead0man that it's funny how people hate others for providing for themselves. Oh noes!

It's not my impression that the Occupy people = the people most screwed over by the system through no fault of their own.

Furthermore, regardless of the system and its workings the main explanatory variable for personal success and happiness has always been and will always be one's own attitude and decisions. Complaining about injustice or unfairness, even if justified, is never a very good idea.

That's a thing that many on the left don't seem to get. It might be true that coming from a certain background makes it harder for you to succeed in life, for example. But sitting down complaining about how your background doomed you to failure is going to make things much worse for you.

[Ghyl Tarvoke]

This thread was going so well with facile argumentation and needless tit-for-tat over slogans and then Gustaf had to come along and ruin it with his "serious person" shtick. So can we all get back to original point of this thread - noticing how much of a giant douche the guy in the OP is.

So let me remind all serious people out there, the problem with the OP is not he is a hard-worker but that he boasts of being in the 1% and implies that those that aren't are lazy. He is a moral wazzle. And pretty typical of the self-proclaimed wealth creator class.

[Ѕenator Αverroës]

massa treats me real good! i don't know what all y'all is complaining about

is really all that needs to be said about this delusional idiot with the sign.

I'd been confused by this statement. Until you posted I thought that it was an Eric Massa joke.

[Vasall des Midas]

Blah blah blah bootstraps blah blah blah.

Nah, he's on scholarships. Interesting that he does not seem to have to pay them back eventually, so they're gifts.