Author Topic: SOPA  (Read 2009 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline PrivilegedYoshi

  • Triggerer of Tumblrinas
  • Trivia Archmage
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,903
  • Karma +5/-3
  • AKA: PsychoYoshi
Re: SOPA
« Reply #15 on: December 02, 2011, 12:14:22 AM »
Scaling back the size of the government could have some negative repercussions.

It could. Not scaling it back has and will continue to do so.

I'm (completely seriously) interested to know what you think the negative repercussions will be. I've listed some of the more common objections I get when talking about this below:

1) If income disparity/"equality"/etc. is your main beef, a libertarian or anarcho-capitalist philosophy won't address that concern, largely because they are concerned with freedom from coercion by others, not guaranteeing resources necessary to accomplish all of one's desires that progressivism loves to espouse that it will provide (and will never succeed in providing). So, yes, if you're worried about the Medicare/Medicaid/Food stamp/government student loan/entitlement x gravy train stopping, you frankly shouldn't agree with my position. I do, however, would like to make note of the extreme cognitive dissonance in the minds of people who go "stop special interests" while willingly taking advantage of every possible program that Uncle Sam offers.

Further applying this to social issues (and because everything on this forum inevitably devolves into discussion of sodomy, anyway):
Negative liberty: Thou shalt not stop two men from sleeping together and saying they love each other just because thou findesth it icky.
Positive liberty: Thou shalt provide two men in love with the state-sponsored perks that thou givesth straight couples.
For the record: I don't think there should be any state-sponsored marriage whether hetero or homosexual and if people are worried about things like spousal visitation privileges in hospitals, they are more than capable of:
a) Going to a hospital that won't go "EWWWW! I DON'T LIKE YOU BECAUSE OF [REASON HERE]!"
and
b) Drawing up a contract that espouses which rights, financial or social, they want to jointly share.

2) If you're worried about further economic instability, I would argue that the Fed and the rest of the government distorts the true worth of the market via a shell game of regulation, redistribution, and controls. You may want to consider reading this for a primer on Austrian economics. The section on the broken window/glazier's fallacy is especially good and pretty much destroys the rationale for economic stimulus.

Offline Chris8492

  • Ace Attorney
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,285
  • Karma +5/-0
  • Invisible
Re: SOPA
« Reply #16 on: January 31, 2012, 06:58:51 PM »
Well well, SOPA got delayed (no surprise there) are they honestly gonna just keep delaying it? Let it die out already. I kinda find it funny how the internet is one of the only things we are free to use without a radical limitation, but now the government is trying to place a limitation on it which would make us all have no voice in the internet. Violation of the First Amendment much?

Offline Kayo

  • The Inalterable
  • The Rawk
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,508
  • Karma +19/-16
  • Shhhh.
  • AKA: Kianglo
Re: SOPA
« Reply #17 on: January 31, 2012, 07:48:37 PM »
Well well, SOPA got delayed (no surprise there) are they honestly gonna just keep delaying it? Let it die out already. I kinda find it funny how the internet is one of the only things we are free to use without a radical limitation, but now the government is trying to place a limitation on it which would make us all have no voice in the internet. Violation of the First Amendment much?
It's entirely argumentative with the First Amendment, but hopefully it'll keep getting pushed back until it kind of just dwindles out and people forget all about it.
I really hate how I've made more than 12,000 posts here. Thankfully this swaying, moving Chandelure makes it all worth it.

Offline BOREDFOREVER

  • Gamezor
  • 00 Agent
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,153
  • Karma +1/-14
  • excitedly stoic
Re: SOPA
« Reply #18 on: February 12, 2012, 10:07:20 PM »
It's entirely argumentative with the First Amendment, but hopefully it'll keep getting pushed back until it kind of just dwindles out and people forget all about it.

It'll keep getting pushed back and renamed until we forget about it and they can pass it (or some version of it).

Offline Zero

  • Great Lord
  • ***
  • Posts: 4,898
  • Karma +61/-55
Re: SOPA
« Reply #19 on: February 13, 2012, 06:45:27 AM »
It could. Not scaling it back has and will continue to do so.

I'm (completely seriously) interested to know what you think the negative repercussions will be. I've listed some of the more common objections I get when talking about this below:

1) If income disparity/"equality"/etc. is your main beef, a libertarian or anarcho-capitalist philosophy won't address that concern, largely because they are concerned with freedom from coercion by others, not guaranteeing resources necessary to accomplish all of one's desires that progressivism loves to espouse that it will provide (and will never succeed in providing). So, yes, if you're worried about the Medicare/Medicaid/Food stamp/government student loan/entitlement x gravy train stopping, you frankly shouldn't agree with my position. I do, however, would like to make note of the extreme cognitive dissonance in the minds of people who go "stop special interests" while willingly taking advantage of every possible program that Uncle Sam offers.

Further applying this to social issues (and because everything on this forum inevitably devolves into discussion of sodomy, anyway):
Negative liberty: Thou shalt not stop two men from sleeping together and saying they love each other just because thou findesth it icky.
Positive liberty: Thou shalt provide two men in love with the state-sponsored perks that thou givesth straight couples.
For the record: I don't think there should be any state-sponsored marriage whether hetero or homosexual and if people are worried about things like spousal visitation privileges in hospitals, they are more than capable of:
a) Going to a hospital that won't go "EWWWW! I DON'T LIKE YOU BECAUSE OF [REASON HERE]!"
and
b) Drawing up a contract that espouses which rights, financial or social, they want to jointly share.

2) If you're worried about further economic instability, I would argue that the Fed and the rest of the government distorts the true worth of the market via a shell game of regulation, redistribution, and controls. You may want to consider reading this for a primer on Austrian economics. The section on the broken window/glazier's fallacy is especially good and pretty much destroys the rationale for economic stimulus.

Forgot about this thread. Honestly I don't really have much to contribute, PY. I'm not going to pretend to be as knowledgeable as you are in the realm of politics/economics, but I'll certainly provide my thoughts. I don't necessarily disagree with you(though it really would intercourse ing blow if my student loans/grants got cut, no joke), but yeah, here I go.

I will say that off the top of my head, the problems I think of when scaling back the size of the government are:

-The question arises of when to stop scaling back. How far do you go?
-How do you maintain a government of that size?
-The government employs around 2.65 million people. How many jobs get cut? Which jobs get cut? How are we going to create jobs in this new, smaller government?
-How do you maintain military strength to deter threats from other countries when you have a small government?
-How do you keep human greed from interfering with legislation? Scaling back the size/power of government won't stop this completely.
-How do you even go about scaling back the size of government to begin with? Voting for senators and sending letters only does so much when nearly everyone in politics has an insatiable desire for wealth and power, even if it is by the expense of others.

There are probably more.

If the government could just act on the behalf of US and not special interest groups, we probably wouldn't even be having this discussion.

Offline Kayo

  • The Inalterable
  • The Rawk
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,508
  • Karma +19/-16
  • Shhhh.
  • AKA: Kianglo
Re: SOPA
« Reply #20 on: February 13, 2012, 06:14:45 PM »
I think we're just beating a dead horse here. That is of course, on the hopes of that slim chance it doesn't come back. There's still that little ray of hope that we've seen the last of it, but we can't be so sure.
I really hate how I've made more than 12,000 posts here. Thankfully this swaying, moving Chandelure makes it all worth it.

Offline Zero

  • Great Lord
  • ***
  • Posts: 4,898
  • Karma +61/-55
Re: SOPA
« Reply #21 on: February 14, 2012, 07:30:30 AM »
I couldn't disagree more. This discussion would only be beating a dead horse if the threat wasn't on the horizon at all. The governments of the world are making it clear that they want even more control than they already have all across the board.

Call me a nutjob but the reality George Orwell envisioned in 1984 probably isn't too far off if this kind of law gets passed.

Offline Kayo

  • The Inalterable
  • The Rawk
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,508
  • Karma +19/-16
  • Shhhh.
  • AKA: Kianglo
Re: SOPA
« Reply #22 on: February 14, 2012, 07:35:48 PM »
I couldn't disagree more. This discussion would only be beating a dead horse if the threat wasn't on the horizon at all. The governments of the world are making it clear that they want even more control than they already have all across the board.

Call me a nutjob but the reality George Orwell envisioned in 1984 probably isn't too far off if this kind of law gets passed.
I'm still just being hopeful, here.
I really hate how I've made more than 12,000 posts here. Thankfully this swaying, moving Chandelure makes it all worth it.

Offline Zero

  • Great Lord
  • ***
  • Posts: 4,898
  • Karma +61/-55
Re: SOPA
« Reply #23 on: February 14, 2012, 10:25:40 PM »
I'm still just being hopeful, here.

I see. Well I hope your optimism wins out.

Offline Hero_of_Darkness

  • Looker
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,814
  • Karma +0/-0
Re: SOPA
« Reply #24 on: February 15, 2012, 08:08:23 AM »
That "delay" means that the bill is effectively dead. It will never pass. They're not discussing it or trying to change it. It's simply not going to be voted on. They don't just delay voting due to opposition and later bring it back hoping the opposition will just go away, especially when the opposition includes companies like Google and Microsoft.

That said, while the bill itself is gone for good, they may eventually stick the provisions of it into another, more important one that has to be passed. The chances are more 50/50 than anything.

Offline Zero

  • Great Lord
  • ***
  • Posts: 4,898
  • Karma +61/-55
Re: SOPA
« Reply #25 on: February 15, 2012, 09:00:43 AM »
That's incredibly optimistic Hero.

There's still ACTA.

Offline Hero_of_Darkness

  • Looker
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,814
  • Karma +0/-0
Re: SOPA
« Reply #26 on: February 15, 2012, 09:19:05 AM »
That's incredibly optimistic Hero.

There's still ACTA.
It's not optimistic. It's the way these things work. SOPA itself is dead. I'm sure that what SOPA was trying to accomplish will return in some form, but the direct approach won't ever work.

Offline Zero

  • Great Lord
  • ***
  • Posts: 4,898
  • Karma +61/-55
Re: SOPA
« Reply #27 on: February 15, 2012, 01:41:14 PM »
That's not even what I was arguing man, and I refuse to believe that you didn't know this. I even used the words "this kind of law" in my post that Kayo responded to.

A threat by another name is still the same threat.

Offline Kayo

  • The Inalterable
  • The Rawk
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,508
  • Karma +19/-16
  • Shhhh.
  • AKA: Kianglo
Re: SOPA
« Reply #28 on: February 15, 2012, 07:07:59 PM »
That "delay" means that the bill is effectively dead. It will never pass. They're not discussing it or trying to change it. It's simply not going to be voted on. They don't just delay voting due to opposition and later bring it back hoping the opposition will just go away, especially when the opposition includes companies like Google and Microsoft.

That said, while the bill itself is gone for good, they may eventually stick the provisions of it into another, more important one that has to be passed. The chances are more 50/50 than anything.
This is kind of what I'm thinking, though you're explaining it much better than me. I think they realize that they're getting the dirty looks from Google and Microsoft, and they're either going to shelve it permanently or subtly try to bring SOPA's points back through crafty wordplay and loopholes in some future proposal (at which point we'll catch them anyway).

In other words I don't think it will be successful, no matter what they call it.
I really hate how I've made more than 12,000 posts here. Thankfully this swaying, moving Chandelure makes it all worth it.

Offline Hero_of_Darkness

  • Looker
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,814
  • Karma +0/-0
Re: SOPA
« Reply #29 on: February 15, 2012, 09:26:09 PM »
This is kind of what I'm thinking, though you're explaining it much better than me. I think they realize that they're getting the dirty looks from Google and Microsoft, and they're either going to shelve it permanently or subtly try to bring SOPA's points back through crafty wordplay and loopholes in some future proposal (at which point we'll catch them anyway).

In other words I don't think it will be successful, no matter what they call it.
I wouldn't go that far. They're going to stick it into a bill that really needs to be passed; one that's so important, no type of opposition could stop it. Sadly, it's probably only a matter of time until we're told what we can and can't see on the internet.
« Last Edit: February 15, 2012, 09:28:00 PM by Hero_of_Darkness »