Be Seeing You (Robert Wright & Mickey Kaus)

[graz]

Originally Posted by Wonderment

... an Obama supporter is probably the last person on Earth to point fingers at naive wishful thinkers.

Just because he hasn't given you a happy ending on the only issue that matters in your wonderworld, doesn't mean that his "supporters" (that includes you, right?) aren't grateful for his victory over McCain. Which resulted in at least the following:
http://obamaachievements.org/list

[sugarkang]

Originally Posted by miceelf

Or the tyranny of the completely arbitrary social convention of using a toilet to relieve onesself. ... Yes, people accept constraints on their behavior all of the time.

Yes, but do you have to raise your hand and ask for permission each time you want to take a piss? I think the problem is that I'm sensitive to constraints and you are not, i.e., people accept them, but not everyone likes them.

I am still not clear on how the cure, wrt social security or medicare is worse than the disease. That was kind of the premise of my initial question. In what way is social security worse than the system which preceded it?

How is it not? The CBO can't score anything properly five years in the future. What makes you think that young people will get anything from social security? It's a ponzi scheme, not in the illegal sense, but in that group A pays for group B and group B has no obligation to group A.

[Hume's Bastard]

Thank you Bob and Mickey for a great New Year's gift!

I'm already looking forward to 2013, and all the wonderful new features bhtv will have after a 2012 diavlog season!

Here's to a banner year!

[piscivorous]

The "tax rate" is a meaningless talking point used to generate an emotional response. It is the effective tax rate, you know the rate people actually pay, that matters. Compare the effective tax rate under Eisenhower 90% tax regime with today's effective tax rate under this 35,i believe, regime. The minor differential might just surprise you.

[piscivorous]

Yea Jobs' worship drives me nuts. If ever there was a capitalist Jobs fits that billing to a tee. When his lets keep everything propriety so we can charge the aesthetic addicts 3 times what the product is worth, shit hit the fan he ran to the one company that he made a carrier of denigrating.

[miceelf]

Originally Posted by sugarkang

Yes, but do you have to raise your hand and ask for permission each time you want to take a piss? I think the problem is that I'm sensitive to constraints and you are not, i.e., people accept them, but not everyone likes them.

I think our thresholds are different, sure, but that doesn't mean you are and I am not.

As to the harms caused by social security, you seem to be talking about the outcome of people using social security as a slush fund to pay for other things, not social security per se.

[sugarkang]

Originally Posted by miceelf

As to the harms caused by social security, you seem to be talking about the outcome of people using social security as a slush fund to pay for other things, not social security per se.

We never get to have this discussion because the TwinSwords of media makes people think that Republicans want to destroy Social Security. Democrats are confused about an actual social safety net vs. an institution that purports to act as such. I've pointed to the Chilean model in another thread and, while not perfect, it appears superior to the system we have now. People are entitled to their opinions, but not their own facts.

[stephanie]

Originally Posted by Wonderment

As I said previously, they will be voting for sixty years and are unlikely to flipflop on militarism.

I don't see how history backs you up on this at all. It seems to rely on "once saved always saved" logic, where all the counter examples were never really saved. My suspicion is that you are extrapolating from a relatively self-selected group (your fellow peace movement folks), who don't give much evidence of the population as a whole, young or not.

Maybe it's just wishful thinking, but an Obama supporter is probably the last person on Earth to point fingers at naive wishful thinkers.

Again, this seems like projection. The Obama voters I know aren't surprised at his politics/actions in any great respect.

[miceelf]

Originally Posted by sugarkang

We never get to have this discussion because the TwinSwords of media makes people think that Republicans want to destroy Social Security.

In this regard, I am with with TwinSwords of the world. The Republican proposal would end social security as we know it, replacing it with something far inferior and with no real benefit. "Destroy" may be slightly inaccurate shorthand, but only slightly.

[Simon Willard]

Originally Posted by Wonderment

That's exactly why I don't want the USA to have nukes. Not only are we just as crazy, but we have a track record as the only country on Earth to have used nukes against a civilian population.

Iran is no more likely to use a nuke than the USA or Russia.

You guys are missing the point. It's not about using nukes. It's about losing nukes. It's more likely that an Iranian nuke will go missing than for an American nuke to go missing. Even with the large number (too many, I think) that the US possesses.

[sugarkang]

Originally Posted by miceelf

In this regard, I am with with TwinSwords of the world. The Republican proposal would end social security as we know it, replacing it with something far inferior and with no real benefit. "Destroy" may be slightly inaccurate shorthand, but only slightly.

Ah. Here's the meat of the discussion. Whenever I brought up something of substance in the past, I got no further replies. Of course, people feel free to label me an issue dodger or a liar. So, what exactly would be far inferior about a Chilean pension system that amounts to no real benefit when the latest Mercer Index ranks them higher and when Moody's said we ought to get our debt under control like Chile? Dying to know here.

[Baz]

Originally Posted by Simon Willard

You guys are missing the point. It's not about using nukes. It's about losing nukes. It's more likely that an Iranian nuke will go missing than for an American nuke to go missing. Even with the large number (too many, I think) that the US possesses.

But where is the justification for this? I don't think that's the issue at all regarding the hostility toward Iran's nuclear program. Do you not think its more the case that Iran would have a deterrent against US and Israel in the region if it did decide to weaponize its nuclear program?

After whats happened in the last ten years in the region, Afghanistan, Iraq...if you were in the Iranian leadership would you want a deterrent?

[handle]

Originally Posted by piscivorous

Yea Jobs' worship drives me nuts. If ever there was a capitalist Jobs fits that billing to a tee. When his lets keep everything propriety so we can charge the aesthetic addicts 3 times what the product is worth, shit hit the fan he ran to the one company that he made a carrier of denigrating.

That's how you keep your design company alive when everything including your own product, is made in China. My first macbook pro is over 8 year old and still ticking, and I've gone through several PC's in that time so the cost has been roughly equivalent. My new one cost half what the old one did. I have both because much of the software I use is not cross platform from either side. As a technician, though, I gotta say I prefer unix shell (OSX, Linux), and the proprietary hardware is top notch.
What's wrong with capitalists again? Or aesthetics? Or working for the competition when you get canned?
I really like to see companies that care more about the end user and product quality than the short term gains of the stock holders... but that's just me.
No worship here, just appreciation.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Originally Posted by miceelf

I just think that you and Kang are dramatically over-stating the costs in this matter.

They said the same thing to Cato.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Originally Posted by Don Zeko

Care to explain why?

Because Farrakhan is responsible for saying and possibly doing some very terrible things. Ron Paul was the name on a masthead above someone else's column.

[TwinSwords]

Originally Posted by miceelf

In this regard, I am with with TwinSwords of the world. The Republican proposal would end social security as we know it, replacing it with something far inferior and with no real benefit. "Destroy" may be slightly inaccurate shorthand, but only slightly.

It's worth noting, I think, that sugarkang himself is one of those who wants to destroy Social Security -- wiping it out completely. Unless he's changed his mind in the months since he used to go around saying stuff like this:

Originally Posted by sugarkang

Old people cost the most money. By low-cost, I mean we take care of all Americans until age 18. After that, you're on your own. Save your money slowly for retirement and medical services, or blow it all in Vegas. I don't care.

The "I don't care" is a nice touch. If you reach the end of your working life and haven't been able to save money for retirement (which could only happen because you lacked virtue, "blew it in Vegas," and therefore deserve your fate), the libertarian response is "I don't care."

"Sorry pal, not my problem. I don't care" is really the whole libertarian philosophy in a nutshell.

[Wonderment]

It's not about using nukes. It's about losing nukes. It's more likely that an Iranian nuke will go missing than for an American nuke to go missing. Even with the large number (too many, I think) that the US possesses.

Why is Iran any more dangerous with regard to loose nukes than Pakistan or North Korea? I'm against all nuclear proliferation, but I see no reason to single out Iran and to issue belligerent ultimatums, as all the Republican candidates with the exception of Ron Paul have.

If it weren't for Israeli warmongering and paranoia, we'd be far less concerned with Iran's WMD and far less likely to escalate the threats.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Originally Posted by Wonderment

Why is Iran any more dangerous with regard to loose nukes than Pakistan or North Korea?

LOL Good standard. "North Korea and Pakistan are irresponsible stewards of nuclear weapons, lets let Iran give it a go. Couldn't be much worse."

The answer is obviously, "Right. We should have prevented the Norks and the Pakistanis from having nuclear weapons. We should now prevent the Iranians while we can."

[Ocean]

Originally Posted by TwinSwords

The "I don't care" is a nice touch. If you reach the end of your working life and haven't been able to save money for retirement (which could only happen because you lacked virtue, "blew it in Vegas," and therefore deserve your fate), the libertarian response is "I don't care."

"Sorry pal, not my problem. I don't care" is really the whole libertarian philosophy in a nutshell.

Yes, and let's say that the person has been saving money for retirement. He is in his 50s. He suddenly loses his job. He loses his benefits, including healthcare. And a couple of months later his wife gets diagnosed with cancer. No health insurance, no job. Still paying mortgage. Losing the house. Using lifetime savings to be able to survive and pay for medical bills. In a few years the savings are gone. Nothing left. No chance of getting a job. Does anyone care?

[Wonderment]

"Right. We should have prevented the Norks and the Pakistanis from having nuclear weapons. We should now prevent the Iranians while we can."

Why should "we" do this? "We" are not in charge of the world. There is no sane reason for anyone to possess nuclear weapons.

The only way out of the nuclear dilemma is universal disarmament.

[TwinSwords]

Originally Posted by Ocean

Yes, and let's say that the person has been saving money for retirement. He is in his 50s. He suddenly loses his job. He loses his benefits, including healthcare. And a couple of months later his wife gets diagnosed with cancer. No health insurance, no job. Still paying mortgage. Losing the house. Using lifetime savings to be able to survive and pay for medical bills. In a few years the savings are gone. Nothing left. No chance of getting a job. Does anyone care?

It's painful to think about these tragic cases, and they are all too common. And thanks to Republican policies, they are becoming much more common. The trajectory the libertarians and Republicans have put us on promises much higher levels of poverty and financial stress in the years ahead. Kang himself, for example, militates for lower wages, job outsourcing, and fewer people going to college.

But there is good news!

Here:

Originally Posted by Ocean

Does anyone care?

Yes! Most people are normal. Most people have compassion, and most people -- even most Republicans! -- support a safety net and want to protect Social Security and Medicare. Which is why even if they succeed in destroying these systems in the short term (because they have captured the political system), they will fail in the long run. No population would ever willingly subject itself to the libertarian dystopia, or return to the days when the elder population died homeless and starving in the streets. If libertarians want to give us this world, it will have to be at the point of a gun. Note that this dovetails nicely with why Ron Paul and associates so despise democracy; you can't impose that kind of barbarism on a population if they have any say about it, thus the urgent need to govern society according to the Randian/Peikoffian conception that the government should be powerless.

[uncle ebeneezer]

The "I don't care" is a nice touch. If you reach the end of your working life and haven't been able to save money for retirement (which could only happen because you lacked virtue, "blew it in Vegas," and therefore deserve your fate), the libertarian response is "I don't care."

Which is pretty much why I have lost all respect for the people I know who lean libertarian, in recent years. A paper-thin veneer of utilitarianism, to poorly mask a blatantly selfish core.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Originally Posted by Wonderment

Why should "we" do this?

Because it is the responsibility of power.

"We" are not in charge of the world.

No, but as the strongest free state, we are looked to to lead. We should assemble a coalition to deal with the matter.

There is no sane reason for anyone to possess nuclear weapons.

Of course there is. To enjoy ultimate military dominance over regional rivals. That is a "sane reason" to possess them.

The only way out of the nuclear dilemma is universal disarmament.

Except that is implausible.

[AemJeff]

Originally Posted by Wonderment

Why should "we" do this? "We" are not in charge of the world. There is no sane reason for anyone to possess nuclear weapons.

The only way out of the nuclear dilemma is universal disarmament.

"There is no sane reason for anyone to possess nuclear weapons." Why should we prevent someone else from doing so?

I don't think you have a consistent position here, man.

Good luck, btw, with universal disarmament. The physics is getting to be old hat. Each passing decade lowers the bar, increases the ease with which these things can be made. What do you propose to do when the technology becomes easily accessible by moderately sophisticated non-state actors? It will be, eventually.

[Baz]

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

LOL Good standard. "North Korea and Pakistan are irresponsible stewards of nuclear weapons, lets let Iran give it a go. Couldn't be much worse."

The answer is obviously, "Right. We should have prevented the Norks and the Pakistanis from having nuclear weapons. We should now prevent the Iranians while we can."

It's not just about stopping Iran getting nukes though. Iran has made offers to the US in the past regarding all nuclear issues (offering full transparency etc) and regarding full recognition of Israel, and even dropping their support for Hezbollah and Hamas. The US didn't even respond to the offer.

In 2004 (I think), Iran and the EU came to an egreement where Iran would stop enrichment in return for security guarantees from Europe. Iran honoured the agreement but Europe didn't, apparently under US pressure... as usual.

So you're argument about preventing Iran from acquiring nukes might be a sound position to take, but it seems its not the position US foreign policy planners are interested in.

[TwinSwords]

Originally Posted by uncle ebeneezer

Which is pretty much why I have lost all respect for the people I know who lean libertarian, in recent years. A paper-thin veneer of utilitarianism, to poorly mask a blatantly selfish core.

Exactly. Libertarianism is essentially sociopathy. Just look at that Ron Paul video in which he says healthy 30 year olds should sooner die than have the state pay their way - and the whole audience roared with approval. The disturbing thing about that Ron Paul video was he actually looked angry as he contemplated the question of the state being asked to pay to keep someone alive -- like the real affront was the imposition on the taxpayer.

[Wonderment]

Originally Posted by AemJeff

"There is no sane reason for anyone to possess nuclear weapons." Why should we prevent someone else from doing so?

I don't think you have a consistent position here, man.

It's consistent. Imagine you're in high school and most of the gang kids have guns and are affiliated with either the Cripps or Bloods. You go to the Cripps head gangster and say, "I need a gun to be safe from you guys." The gang thug can say, 1) If you try to buy a gun, I will personally blow your brains out and sic my minions on your entire family or 2) "Since we thugs have guns, I suppose it's only fair that you have one too. However, guns are a scourge on our entire culture. Far better for everyone to give up their guns. Tell you what, if you promise not to buy a gun, we Bloods will talk to the Crips and turn in all our guns. Just give us a little time."

Option 2 is the essence of the NPT and perfectly consistent with full disarmament. The USA and Russia (among others) are, however, in non-compliance.

Good luck, btw, with universal disarmament. The physics is getting to be old hat. Each passing decade lowers the bar, increases the ease with which these things can be made. What do you propose to do when the technology becomes easily accessible by moderately sophisticated non-state actors? It will be, eventually

.

That makes my case more, not less, persuasive.

[sugarkang]

Originally Posted by uncle ebeneezer

Which is pretty much why I have lost all respect for the people I know who lean libertarian, in recent years. A paper-thin veneer of utilitarianism, to poorly mask a blatantly selfish core.

SMH. People don't have the right to decide their finances is what you're saying? It's your God given duty to go and save people from themselves?

[stephanie]

Originally Posted by uncle ebeneezer

Which is pretty much why I have lost all respect for the people I know who lean libertarian, in recent years. A paper-thin veneer of utilitarianism, to poorly mask a blatantly selfish core.

The people I know who do -- these days, anyway -- are more unrealistic than selfish, IMO. They don't think their financial status would necessarily be any better. They think the world would be better, because of course all medical care would be picked up by charity and there would be harsh consequences that would prevent people from acting irresponsibly. Indeed, I think the main motivator is (1) a belief (contrary to reality) that people really do act according to their ideas of what rational actors will do; and (2) a belief that those who don't deserve to be punished. Also, often, a view that the world as it is structured isn't rewarding them properly, especially as compared with other undeserving types, but again this is not generally combined with an assertion that they would be doing well under the perfect libertarian society. Though now that I write this I wonder if they think that but just aren't admitting it.

Oddly enough, though I've never been libertarian, I was once more sympathetic/prone to those ideas when I was both unhappy with my life and felt like I'd had no choice wrongly (years ago) about the choices I'd made, because they were the only responsible ones, etc.

[Simon Willard]

Originally Posted by Baz

Do you not think its more the case that Iran would have a deterrent against US and Israel in the region if it did decide to weaponize its nuclear program?

I'm not addressing their reasons for wanting weapons. That's not what we should care about. Our concern should be the control and security of such weapons. They are not stable enough for that responsibility.

They want a deterrent -- against what, exactly? Would nukes deter the US from forcing open the straights? Of course not.

[Simon Willard]

Originally Posted by Wonderment

Why is Iran any more dangerous with regard to loose nukes than Pakistan or North Korea? I'm against all nuclear proliferation, but I see no reason to single out Iran and to issue belligerent ultimatums, as all the Republican candidates with the exception of Ron Paul have.

I didn't say Iran is more dangerous than Pakistan; It may not be (I'm not an expert). But that horse has left the barn. We can still delay Iran. And delay is a good thing to do.

To tell someone they can't have their very own industrial infrastructure for the production of weapons of mass destruction -- that's a rather odd definition of "belligerence", don't you think?

[Baz]

Originally Posted by Simon Willard

They want a deterrent -- against what, exactly? Would nukes deter the US from forcing open the straights? Of course not.

Against the constant threats of attack against them from the US and Israel. Both their neighbors have been attacked and occupied in the last ten years. Why are Iran threatening to close the Straits? For fun? Putting embargoes on states are acts of war against them states.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Originally Posted by Baz

Against the constant threats of attack against them from the US and Israel. Both their neighbors have been attacked and occupied in the last ten years.

Which is of course irrelevant. The Taliban was barely a 20th century fighting force, and Iraq was a 1970s basket case. And obviously, the cost of both has been widely publicized and the American people's irritation registered. The notion that Iran sincerely fears invasion is ludicrous.

Why are Iran threatening to close the Straits? For fun?

For the purpose of cementing its place as the dominant regional power. Contrary to our interests, obviously.

[Wonderment]

To tell someone they can't have their very own industrial infrastructure for the production of weapons of mass destruction -- that's a rather odd definition of "belligerence", don't you think?

No, I don't think so.

If Iran were to say to Israel, for example, "You can't have any nukes, and if we detect the evidence of any in your territory, we will bomb you," you'd probably agree that the ultimatum was belligerent, right?

Also, the US and Israel have almost certainly already committed acts of war (cyber war, explosions and assassinations of scientists) against Iran in an effort to prevent the country from developing nuclear energy and perhaps nuclear weapons.

[Baz]

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

The Taliban was barely a 20th century fighting force, and Iraq was a 1970s basket case.

You mean they had no deterrent right?

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

The notion that Iran sincerely fears invasion is ludicrous.

Yes Sulla, maybe the US does ludicrous things, like invading Iraq. But I said an attack, not an invasion. US forces are in place for a massive military attack on Iran, Iran sees this as a viable threat, which is perfectly rational looking at whats happened next door to them.

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

For the purpose of cementing its place as the dominant regional power.

Whether you call it a "dominant regional power" or an "influential regional power" its inevitable. Even without the mullahs in charge Iran's influence will spread beyond its borders for obviuos reasons. The US will have to accept this sooner or later, look at South America and how the countries down there are kicking the US bases out.

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

Contrary to our interests, obviously.

Who's interests are they contrary to Sulla? Yours, mine, Joe six pack? The average citizen is suffering because of the pointless war games that are going on now. And if there's an escalation the oil prices may double or triple. I wonder who's interests this is in.

[miceelf]

Originally Posted by Wonderment

2) "Since we thugs have guns, I suppose it's only fair that you have one too. However, guns are a scourge on our entire culture. Far better for everyone to give up their guns. Tell you what, if you promise not to buy a gun, we Bloods will talk to the Crips and turn in all our guns. Just give us a little time."

Option 2 is the essence of the NPT and perfectly consistent with full disarmament. The USA and Russia (among others) are, however, in non-compliance.

Option 2 also seems similar in realism to full disarmament.

[Florian]

Originally Posted by Baz

It's not just about stopping Iran getting nukes though. Iran has made offers to the US in the past regarding all nuclear issues (offering full transparency etc) and regarding full recognition of Israel, and even dropping their support for Hezbollah and Hamas. The US didn't even respond to the offer.

In 2004 (I think), Iran and the EU came to an egreement where Iran would stop enrichment in return for security guarantees from Europe. Iran honoured the agreement but Europe didn't, apparently under US pressure... as usual.

So you're argument about preventing Iran from acquiring nukes might be a sound position to take, but it seems its not the position US foreign policy planners are interested in.

Yes, all very odd, all very strange, I agree. The US, supported by its European stooges (in which I include France), seems bent on pushing Iran into the corner. I was expecting that Obama would make an effort to open up diplomatic channels instead of continuing down the path to war.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Originally Posted by Baz

You mean they had no deterrent right?

No I mean they were relatively easy to throw out of power. The difficulty comes in managing the places after the regimes were gone. Iran wouldn't be as easy, and everyone knows it, including Iran. Thus, talk about fears of invasion is a ridiculous game of puppet theater.

Yes Sulla, maybe the US does ludicrous things, like invading Iraq.

That isn't ludicrous. That is relatively simple, as I said. The difficulty comes in staying.

But I said an attack, not an invasion. US forces are in place for a massive military attack on Iran, Iran sees this as a viable threat, which is perfectly rational looking at whats happened next door to them.

No, it isn't. The Taliban was inarguably provocative towards the United States. The Iranians know this. Iraq was at the end of a ten year slide of pariah statehood leaving it a basket case. The Iranians know this.

When you say "attack", then "what happened next door to them" is meaningless. Those nations were invaded and occupied, not "attacked". What Iran is actually concerned about is that a pinpoint attack could happen publicly, without being able to stop it, as the Israelis did in Syria, and they would be embarrassed by looking as though they had feet of clay.

That concern is a sign of weakness, and we'd be foolish not to press our advantage in order for them to grant us what we want to spare them the humiliation.

Whether you call it a "dominant regional power" or an "influential regional power" its inevitable. Even without the mullahs in charge Iran's influence will spread beyond its borders for obviuos reasons.

It isn't at all inevitable. What you will have is a Sunni bloc combating the spread of Iranian influence. When Syria falls, this will become quite serious. These people at odds will work to our advantage if we engage in politics like grown ups rather than decadent sentimentalists.

The US will have to accept this sooner or later, look at South America and how the countries down there are kicking the US bases out.

We don't need bases. But I agree that the State Department and the CIA have failed miserably in Latin America. Our problem in that region has to do with a cancer metastasizing in our own politics, not some structural weakness in statecraft inherent in a muscular American foreign policy. See Honduras.

Who's interests are they contrary to Sulla? Yours, mine, Joe six pack? The average citizen is suffering because of the pointless war games that are going on now. And if there's an escalation the oil prices may double or triple. I wonder who's interests this is in.

Oil prices can double or triple based on the politics of the region, absent any involvement from us. Your path means we just have to hope for the best. My recommendation leaves us with choices.

[piscivorous]

Better ban those 12" hunting knives as well

[Florian]

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

When you say "attack", then "what happened next door to them" is meaningless. Those nations were invaded and occupied, not "attacked". What Iran is actually concerned about is that a pinpoint attack could happen publicly, without being able to stop it, as the Israelis did in Syria, and they would be embarrassed by looking as though they had feet of clay.

That concern is a sign of weakness, and we'd be foolish not to press our advantage in order for them to grant us what we want to spare them the humiliation.

How is the US going to "press its advantage" when it refuses to engage with Iran through diplomatic channels? If the threat of an attack is nothing but a bargaining chip, you have to be in a position to bargain. No poker without a table.

You are also assuming that a pinpoint attack can be successful in knocking out Iran's nuclear ambitions once and for all. From what I have read that is moot, and thus perhaps not as strong an incentive to Iran to abandon its program as you suggest. If the attack is unsuccessful, it will not humiliate the Iranians. It may just enrage them more and make them all the more determined to fabricate a bomb.