Hi
 

All

just a heads up I've been added as politics mod and have selected RR and Jman to give me a hand along with Iron who will be staying on as well.

I won't be doing anything drastic to start but will be with the other mods and input from you be looking to make this forum better place for political discussion.

one thing to to start. Id like to put an immediate stop to all posts calling someone a troll, requesting their ban or other mod action (locking deleting, flogging) if you believe a post should be looked at please use the notify mod option located beneath the text of the post. if you have problem with a poster or believe he/she should be banned please send me a PM explaining what's going on.

thanks

Re: Hi
 

Good luck and thanks for the effort.

Re: Hi
 

also all,

I believe its only fair that because any rules we come up will be new that all posters be given a clean slate so to speak. this doesnt mean that i wont be my normal harsh self but Ive decided against coming in with sort of hit list and will be giving everyone an opportunity to show that they are willing to help me and the mods with providing a good forum.

Re: Hi
 

As a non-anarchist, I look forward to the improvement additional moderation in pursuit of the quality of the forum will bring. Good luck to the new editor in helping make the exchanges here a more content-rich experience.

Re: Hi
 

I wanted to add to this. Vigorous debate is a part of politics, but everyone must remember that you aren't going to convince that many people. Many people are certain enough that their position is the correct one that they believe anyone that disagrees with them must be stupid. I can assure you this isn't the case; there are many smart people that disagree with other smart people. After you state your case there is no reason to repeat the same thing over and over in one thread, so please don't do it.

Re: Hi
 

I, for one, welcome our new overlords. Seriously.

Re: Hi
 

ACers a request.

I have a request for those of you who frequently start threads showing examples of where you believe the state is over stepping its bounds, taking away freedom, driving out business, etc in an effort to demonstrate why you hold your political beliefs. these posts are perfectly acceptable and well within the realm of political discussion

however my request is that neilso or someone else could create one thread where you then post these examples from the news and have the general debate about the merits of Acism instead of creating a bunch of separate threads.

as the thread grows and becomes too burdensome just let me or another mod know, and you can create another.

thanks.

Re: Hi
 

Hi [censored] how's it going?

Re: Hi
 

[ QUOTE ]
Hi [censored] how's it going?

[/ QUOTE ]

pretty good tom getting ready to go on a date to see 300! Im pretty excited

how are you?

Re: Hi
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hi [censored] how's it going?

[/ QUOTE ]

pretty good tom getting ready to go on a date to see 300! Im pretty excited

how are you?

[/ QUOTE ]

300 is gonna be an awesome movie! I'm good cept I was talking with this girl all night then she went off with someone else. Bitch!

Re: Hi
 

From other thread, you told me to reply here,

[ QUOTE ]
All,

deleted a few posts in this thread. one thing I would like to see is for arguments on the AC/non AC type when the OP is about a specific area is for replies to stick to that subject instead of going to a general state vs. no state line which I see happen. there will be plenty of broad philosophy type discussions for that so I want specific area threads to be more focused and unique.


this will of course be a judgment call on the part of myself and the mods and there will be times you disagree but please keep that out of the thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

This seems kind of unreasonable to me. Let's look at the OP of the charity thread.

[ QUOTE ]
In trying to deal with the whether there would be sufficient charitable efforts made in an AC society, I haven't seen ACists address the following consideration:

It would seem to me that there is a sizeable portion of the population who, with respect to a large range of the chartable/welfare programs x, would agree with both of the following statements:

1.) I would prefer not to give $z to support x.
2.) I would vote for a law forcing all people to give $z to support x.

That is, they believe that the the charitable effort is worthwhile is given the sufficient funding that forcing everyone to contribute would provide. They are happy to be forced to provide this funding if everyone else is forced to. But given the opportunity to be a free-rider, they would do so.
In short, I think there are lot of programs than many people believe are worthy of support, but only if the burden of support it borne by all, even those who don't want to support it. These programs may be funded by the state, but will disappear in an AC world.

BTW, I'm really uninterested in any sort of "taxation is theft" discussion. I'm just interested in knowing how these programs would exist in AC society , or what would replace them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Basically, he is telling us force is alright for the purpose of the welfare of the poor. He doesn't want to hear that force is wrong. Hell, he even tells us the answer before he even asks question(see bolded parts). How can an AC honestly debate this topic without getting into a state vs no-state morality debate? We don't have any charts or graphs about AC so OF COURSE we can't show you how much charity will exist in AC. Our position(well most of us anyways, excluding utilitarian ACists) is one of morality. Restricting us from debating on the "general state vs no state" line is unreasonable I think. I realize a lot of threads get bogged down by the same old argument, but I say if that's where the momentum of the argument is going, so be it. I don't want to see content over-modded in politics. I respect your desire for keeping the debate civilized and keeping offensive material out of the matter but don't mod debating tactics too. Consider this my plea to be lenient on modding the direction of where threads go. It's politics, discussions should be allowed to go wherever they are going.

Re: Hi
 

[ QUOTE ]
Restricting us from debating on the "general state vs no state" line is unreasonable I think.

[/ QUOTE ]

It would appear that in taking this approach you are running from a legitimate criticism of AC. There are some services that the government is quite good at providing. I am also certain the market can provide these services and deal with the free rider issues. When you retreat to the default position of the state being bad because it provides services by force you are repeating yourself rather than contributing to the discussion in a meaningful way.

Re: Hi
 

[ QUOTE ]
I don't want to see content over-modded in politics.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is quite likely to be. I am going to hope for the best but I'm not too optimistic considering what I've heard so far. I hope that I am wrong in my pessimism.

*crosses fingers and thinks happy thoughts*

Re: Hi
 

[img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img] *sigh* 3 more mods....nothing personal, I just didn't want to see any.

Re: Hi
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Restricting us from debating on the "general state vs no state" line is unreasonable I think.

[/ QUOTE ]

It would appear that in taking this approach you are running from a legitimate criticism of AC. There are some services that the government is quite good at providing. I am also certain the market can provide these services and deal with the free rider issues. When you retreat to the default position of the state being bad because it provides services by force you are repeating yourself rather than contributing to the discussion in a meaningful way.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not retreating from the criticism at all. But everytime someone asks something about AC the debate would just be...

"How will this work in AC-land?"
"Free market, next topic."

We can't say exactly HOW the free market will solve certain things and we never claim utopia where everything has a happy solution.

Re: Hi
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not retreating from the criticism at all. But everytime someone asks something about AC the debate would just be...

"How will this work in AC-land?"
"Free market, next topic."

We can't say exactly HOW the free market will solve certain things and we never claim utopia where everything has a happy solution.


[/ QUOTE ]

When they ask this sort of question one of two things is true. Either they are trolling for a state vs. AC debate or they want to know how the free market will deal with this. It is ok to not know the answer when someone asks a question. If you don't know the how they are asking about it might be time to examine your own position rather than counting on the market to work through it. I believe markets are very powerful, but I reached that conclusion through study not blind faith.

Re: Hi
 

[censored],

Good luck.

Political Beliefs
 

RR and Jman, could you briefly state your political beliefs.
This way I will know whether I can express my conservative poltical beliefs freely or not in the forum...If liberal, I can go into hibernation until the forum is safe for me to post again. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

PS
I should add that I like Ann Coulter and think she is funny and smart as hell.

Re: Political Beliefs
 

[ QUOTE ]
RR and Jman, could you briefly state your political beliefs.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't have many political beliefs, but I have an MA in economics and this guy was one of my favorite profs as an undergrad. http://preview.tinyurl.com/2vkjxg

Re: Hi
 

[ QUOTE ]
If you don't know the how they are asking about it might be time to examine your own position rather than counting on the market to work through it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just because I don't know HOW the free market will deal with every single situation doesn't mean I don't know IF the free market can deal with every single situation. Also I don't have to re-examine my position, because my position is based on morality. That's the point. It's not blind faith, it's just the nature of a free market.

[ QUOTE ]
Either they are trolling for a state vs. AC debate

[/ QUOTE ]

This is my main point from the "Charity in AC" thread. He said [ QUOTE ]
These programs may be funded by the state, but will disappear in an AC world.

[/ QUOTE ] and then [ QUOTE ]
I'm just interested in knowing how these programs would exist in AC society

[/ QUOTE ]

Clearly this is a case of someone trying to push some buttons and thus an AC vs State debate should be fair game here.

Re: Hi
 

Welcome guys!

(welcome back for some [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img])

Re: Hi
 

[ QUOTE ]
Clearly this is a case of someone trying to push some buttons and thus an AC vs State debate should be fair game here.

[/ QUOTE ]

When someone is trying to push buttons like this I would suggest leaving it alone. They don't have an actual question, so why debate someone that is just looking for a fight?

Re: Hi
 

[ QUOTE ]
ACers a request.

I have a request for those of you who frequently start threads showing examples of where you believe the state is over stepping its bounds, taking away freedom, driving out business, etc in an effort to demonstrate why you hold your political beliefs. these posts are perfectly acceptable and well within the realm of political discussion

however my request is that neilso or someone else could create one thread where you then post these examples from the news and have the general debate about the merits of Acism instead of creating a bunch of separate threads.

as the thread grows and becomes too burdensome just let me or another mod know, and you can create another.

thanks.

[/ QUOTE ]

There as many or more threads on the merits of statism as the merits of ACism.

Re: Hi
 

[ QUOTE ]
After you state your case there is no reason to repeat the same thing over and over in one thread, so please don't do it.

[/ QUOTE ]

What if it's clear that the person you're talking to doesn't understand what you're trying to tell them so you try finding different ways to say it?

Re: Hi
 

[ QUOTE ]
:( *sigh* 3 more mods....nothing personal, I just didn't want to see any.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Hi
 

[ QUOTE ]
:( *sigh* 3 more mods....nothing personal, I just didn't want to see any.

[/ QUOTE ]

Same here. Bickering? Delete/Warn/Ban. Slightly off-topic content? Not looking forward to this style of modding.

Re: Hi
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
After you state your case there is no reason to repeat the same thing over and over in one thread, so please don't do it.

[/ QUOTE ]

What if it's clear that the person you're talking to doesn't understand what you're trying to tell them so you try finding different ways to say it?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see a problem with this if there is genuine interest on both sides. What you have to remember about politics is that people believe strongly enough in their positions that they think anyone that disagrees with them is either stupid or trolling. There are times when you have to realize people will just disagree and saying things the most times or the loudest will not change that.

Re: Hi
 

This is a quote from another thread .

[ QUOTE ]
All,

deleted a few posts in this thread. one thing I would like to see is for arguments on the AC/non AC type when the OP is about a specific area is for replies to stick to that subject instead of going to a general state vs. no state line which I see happen. there will be plenty of broad philosophy type discussions for that so I want specific area threads to be more focused and unique.


this will of course be a judgment call on the part of myself and the mods and there will be times you disagree but please keep that out of the thread.

please don't reply to this but instead my post title "hi"

thanks

[/ QUOTE ]


censored, I think u give the phrase " massive overmodding" a whole new meaning.

Re: Political Beliefs
 

http://www.mises.org/
http://www.mises.org/story/2495

Ludwig von Mises Institute!!! OK, I like him too!
I'm a libertarian at heart with a small taste for properly applied gunboat dimplomacy... It is for the latter I have been attacked by dope-smoking-pacifist-hippie-libs on the 2+2 forum... Although I like the weed aspect of their philosphy.... [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: Hi
 

[ QUOTE ]
ACers a request.

I have a request for those of you who frequently start threads showing examples of where you believe the state is over stepping its bounds, taking away freedom, driving out business, etc in an effort to demonstrate why you hold your political beliefs. these posts are perfectly acceptable and well within the realm of political discussion

however my request is that neilso or someone else could create one thread where you then post these examples from the news and have the general debate about the merits of Acism instead of creating a bunch of separate threads.

as the thread grows and becomes too burdensome just let me or another mod know, and you can create another.

thanks.

[/ QUOTE ]

[censored],

Perhaps I'm misinterpretting what you're saying here, but it sounds like you've just confined every post that ACists make to one thread. Are you saying that we should limit "nanny state updates" (posts consisting of just links saying where the state went wrong) to one thread, or any discussion critizing the state to one thread? The latter encompasses quite lot, and a lot of unique and interesting threads could be started on it.

I'm probably getting this wrong, but I'm just not sure what you're saying here.

Re: Hi
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
ACers a request.

I have a request for those of you who frequently start threads showing examples of where you believe the state is over stepping its bounds, taking away freedom, driving out business, etc in an effort to demonstrate why you hold your political beliefs. these posts are perfectly acceptable and well within the realm of political discussion

however my request is that neilso or someone else could create one thread where you then post these examples from the news and have the general debate about the merits of Acism instead of creating a bunch of separate threads.

as the thread grows and becomes too burdensome just let me or another mod know, and you can create another.

thanks.

[/ QUOTE ]

[censored],

Perhaps I'm misinterpretting what you're saying here, but it sounds like you've just confined every post that ACists make to one thread. Are you saying that we should limit "nanny state updates" (posts consisting of just links saying where the state went wrong) to one thread, or any discussion critizing the state to one thread? The latter encompasses quite lot, and a lot of unique and interesting threads could be started on it.

I'm probably getting this wrong, but I'm just not sure what you're saying here.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think he meant the first one. Like Tomdemaine's orphanage thread. But maybe I'm wrong.

Re: Hi
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
ACers a request.

I have a request for those of you who frequently start threads showing examples of where you believe the state is over stepping its bounds, taking away freedom, driving out business, etc in an effort to demonstrate why you hold your political beliefs. these posts are perfectly acceptable and well within the realm of political discussion

however my request is that neilso or someone else could create one thread where you then post these examples from the news and have the general debate about the merits of Acism instead of creating a bunch of separate threads.

as the thread grows and becomes too burdensome just let me or another mod know, and you can create another.

thanks.

[/ QUOTE ]

[censored],

Perhaps I'm misinterpretting what you're saying here, but it sounds like you've just confined every post that ACists make to one thread. Are you saying that we should limit "nanny state updates" (posts consisting of just links saying where the state went wrong) to one thread, or any discussion critizing the state to one thread? The latter encompasses quite lot, and a lot of unique and interesting threads could be started on it.

I'm probably getting this wrong, but I'm just not sure what you're saying here.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would like clarification on this as well. I think it would be fine if an OP explicitly indicated in the subject of a thread Dem's only, or Dem's and Repub's, but to put the burden on one part of the political spectrum to police their responses, to squelch their own political views and not have this apply to others feels quite unfair.

Re: Hi
 

[ QUOTE ]
but to put the burden on one part of the political spectrum to police their responses, to squelch their own political views and not have this apply to others feels quite unfair.


[/ QUOTE ]

Nobody is being asked to squelch their political views. People are being asked to respect one another. If someone wants to start a thread about raising/cutting taxes it is reasonable to expect that the thread won't be overun with people that want to talk the government being immoral. When your posts contribute nothing to the topic at hand and serve only to cause others to leave they are no longer welcome.

Re: Hi
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
but to put the burden on one part of the political spectrum to police their responses, to squelch their own political views and not have this apply to others feels quite unfair.


[/ QUOTE ]

Nobody is being asked to squelch their political views. People are being asked to respect one another. If someone wants to start a thread about raising/cutting taxes it is reasonable to expect that the thread won't be overun with people that want to talk the government being immoral. When your posts contribute nothing to the topic at hand and serve only to cause others to leave they are no longer welcome.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is it your belief/assertion that people can not vehemently disagree on fundamental issues and also respect the person they disagree with?

It would also be helpful if you could provide examples of how dems or repubs may wind up 'derailing threads' due to their fundamental political beliefs. thanks.

Re: Hi
 

[ QUOTE ]
Is it your belief/assertion that people can not vehemently disagree on fundamental issues and also respect the person they disagree with?

[/ QUOTE ]

I am certain they can vehemently disagree on fundemental issues and still repsect the person. That is why I feel everyone will be able not try to shout down those that disagree with them. The shouting is going to stop now.

Re: Hi
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
but to put the burden on one part of the political spectrum to police their responses, to squelch their own political views and not have this apply to others feels quite unfair.


[/ QUOTE ]

Nobody is being asked to squelch their political views. People are being asked to respect one another. If someone wants to start a thread about raising/cutting taxes it is reasonable to expect that the thread won't be overun with people that want to talk the government being immoral. When your posts contribute nothing to the topic at hand and serve only to cause others to leave they are no longer welcome.

[/ QUOTE ]

RR-

If this is the case, I think it would make more sense if you and [censored] said that you were going to simply enforce that posts stay on topic, in the spirit of the OP. That's a good rule, no complaints there.

Re: Hi
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
but to put the burden on one part of the political spectrum to police their responses, to squelch their own political views and not have this apply to others feels quite unfair.


[/ QUOTE ]

Nobody is being asked to squelch their political views. People are being asked to respect one another. If someone wants to start a thread about raising/cutting taxes it is reasonable to expect that the thread won't be overun with people that want to talk the government being immoral. When your posts contribute nothing to the topic at hand and serve only to cause others to leave they are no longer welcome.

[/ QUOTE ]

RR-

If this is the case, I think it would make more sense if you and [censored] said that you were going to simply enforce that posts stay on topic, in the spirit of the OP. That's a good rule, no complaints there.

[/ QUOTE ]

I will point him to this post. I do anticipate some of these things being discussed and clarified as it has been less than 12 hours since we were added.

Re: Hi
 

[ QUOTE ]
It's politics, discussions should be allowed to go wherever they are going.



[/ QUOTE ]

New regime, new rules. You can disabuse yourself of this idea.

Re: Political Beliefs
 

[ QUOTE ]
RR and Jman, could you briefly state your political beliefs.
This way I will know whether I can express my conservative poltical beliefs freely or not in the forum...If liberal, I can go into hibernation until the forum is safe for me to post again. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

PS
I should add that I like Ann Coulter and think she is funny and smart as hell.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't like labels, I'm a unique butterfly. I guess I'd be closest to a Joe Lieberman type of democrat.

Re: Hi
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's politics, discussions should be allowed to go wherever they are going.



[/ QUOTE ]

New regime, new rules. You can disabuse yourself of this idea.

[/ QUOTE ]

Discussions can go wherever they are going provided the place that they are going isn't:

-State Bad!
-State Good!
-State Bad!
-State Good!

Or:

Dems Bad!
Repubs Bad!
Dems Bad!
Repubs Bad!

Or:
-9/11 conspiracy!
-9/11 not conspiracy!
-9/11 not conspiracy!
-9/11 not conspiracy!
-9/11 not conspiracy!
-9/11 not conspiracy!
-9/11 not conspiracy!
-9/11 conspiracy!

etc.