Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped?

[RedSpawn]

People who have been conned admit they were conned and feel anger when the truth is explained; those who have been hustled, though, refuse to accept it and instead double-down on duplicity.

 

Donald Trump is a hustler. What does that make his supporters?

And Former President Bill Clinton is a hustler. What does that make his supporters and his wife that enabled him every step of the way?

Source: http://www.fgfbooks.com/Books/Hustler%20The%20Clinton%20Legacy.html

 

There are Presidential hustlers on both sides of the aisle. It just depends on which Baskin-Robbins flavor you prefer. We tolerate hustlers because we believe their ends justifies the means. Character flaws be damned.

[ldrews]

What does any of that have to do with you or your posting style?

 

You openly stated that you aren't participating on the forums to engage in any kind of a discussion, rather you're acting like an asshole and trying to get a rise out of people.

 

As for "remaining civil". You aren't courteous or polite.

You continuously post bullshit, refuse to engage on substance, and gish gallop like mad.

 

That matters a hell of a lot more than a using a bit of blue language...

 

I would love to engage in discussion, but unfortunately most here seem to be intent on bashing Trump or winning insult points. I have stated this many times so I don't know where you get the idea to the contrary. Perhaps you could give me a link where I have said the opposite.

 

I am sure to someone with a mind as closed as yours that what I post does seem like bullshit, but I can't help you with that. You might try getting out of the echo chamber and thinking for yourself.

 

And I do try to ask provoking questions, that is how discussion is started. Or is discussion to you just lining up behind the prevailing groupthink?

 

Now, we are having a discussion, no?

[hrothgar]

I would love to engage in discussion, but unfortunately most here seem to be intent on bashing Trump or winning insult points. I have stated this many times so I don't know where you get the idea to the contrary. Perhaps you could give me a link where I have said the opposite.

 

 

I believe that the quote went:

 

Excuse me, but I am not trying to convince anyone of anything, apparently you are. I am just posting a viewpoint opposed to the groupthink so prevalent here. We will see how it all turns out at the next elections.

 

http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/72022-has-us-democracy-been-trumped/page__st__8040

 

In order to have a discussion, you need to respond to the questions and comments that other people pose to you.

 

You don't. You post inane bullshit.

People call you on it. They point out where you are wrong. The ask you directions.

You dodge the questions and post more inane bullshit.

 

Listen, I udnerstand why you do this...

 

You live down there in Mexico, probably with no friends or family.

Based on your previous post, it looks like your marriage went to *****.

You have a joke of a website trying to drum up consulting business...

 

So I understand that you want a distraction from your life.

Because I guess any attention from actual humans, even if its folks calling you an asshole, is better than being ignored for another day.

 

But in all seriousness, if things are this grim, why not just kill yourself?

It has to be better than this...

[hrothgar]

I would love to engage in discussion, but unfortunately most here seem to be intent on bashing Trump or winning insult points. I have stated this many times so I don't know where you get the idea to the contrary. Perhaps you could give me a link where I have said the opposite.

 

 

I believe that the quote went:

 

Excuse me, but I am not trying to convince anyone of anything, apparently you are. I am just posting a viewpoint opposed to the groupthink so prevalent here. We will see how it all turns out at the next elections.

 

http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/72022-has-us-democracy-been-trumped/page__st__8040

 

In order to have a discussion, you need to respond to the questions and comments that other people pose to you.

 

You don't. You post inane bullshit.

People call you on it. They point out where you are wrong. The ask you directions.

You dodge the questions and post more inane bullshit.

 

Listen, I udnerstand why you do this...

 

You live down there in Mexico, probably with no friends or family.

Based on your previous post, it looks like your marriage went to *****.

You have a joke of a website trying to drum up consulting business...

 

So I understand that you want a distraction from your life.

Because I guess any attention from actual humans, even if its folks calling you an asshole, is better than being ignored for another day.

 

But in all seriousness, if things are this grim, why not just kill yourself?

It has to be better than this...

 

I bet you have gun...

It would be really easy to do...

[Al_U_Card]

When disagreement is seen as heresy, can an inquisition be far behind? Attacks by the orthodoxy are to expected, especially as the propositions put forth will undermine the basic tenets of the faithful and their closely held beliefs. A rudimentary scan of what has been posted reveals this situation clearly. More revealing than all the googling and preaching and sanctimony combined.

[hrothgar]

When disagreement is seen as heresy, can an inquisition be far behind? Attacks by the orthodoxy are to expected, especially as the propositions put forth will undermine the basic tenets of the faithful and their closely held beliefs. A rudimentary scan of what has been posted reveals this situation clearly. More revealing than all the googling and preaching and sanctimony combined.

 

The 9-11 truther / LaRouchie rides to rescue, hoping that he may have found a kindred spirit!

[Winstonm]

Here is what real populism looks like:

 

An historic jump in small donations drove a wave of Democratic victories in Virginia’s House of Delegates in November, according to a new analysis.

 

Democratic House candidates received 153,422 contributions of $100 or less in the 2017 elections, compared to 7,332 such gifts for Republicans, the nonprofit Virginia Public Access Project found by analyzing official data.

 

Danica Roem, delegate-elect in Virginia’s 13th House district and the state’s first openly transgender lawmaker, picked up nearly 18,000 small donations ― more than the entire Republican total of such contributions.

[Zelandakh]

I find it fascinating that someone with a different viewpoint, who attempts to remain civil in the midst of insults and namecalling, is considered a troll.

Many here tried to engage you in civlised debate. I myself tried to engage you in civilised discussion a number of times. To no avail, all that comes back is bullshit and trolling. At some point you have to accept that the person standing opposite you is a cancer to the BBO forums that ought to be ripped out. If you want to be treated with any modicum of respect then you need to demonstrate that you are willing to become part of the community here and not just an internet troll.

 

Being part of the community oes not mean agreement but it does mean not coming here for the sole point of "getting your rocks off" in trying to rile other members up. I have satisfied myself that that is never going to happen. By all means prove me wrong. Until then, you will remain for me and, I suspect, the majority of regular WC posters low-life pond scum. And yes, I will do my best to make sure non-WC BBF members are aware of this before they make the mistake of partnering your sorry arse.

[Zelandakh]

Based on your previous post, it looks like your marriage went to *****.

Oh is that why he had to sell the house? Makes sense - he's such a pathetic loser. Though I guess he probably deludes himself that he is "winning" - perhaps that is why he feels the need to come here and troll. :lol: :wacko:

[diana_eva]

I would love to engage in discussion, but unfortunately most here seem to be intent on bashing Trump or winning insult points. I have stated this many times so I don't know where you get the idea to the contrary. Perhaps you could give me a link where I have said the opposite.

 

Larry the problem is you never provide anything to back your "i'm tired of winning" statements, and you simply ignore questions from other posters. You keep replying with other questions instead. That's why you come across as a troll, you do not discuss, ever. You post some stuff like it's gospel then keep posting one liner replies and rhetorical questions. That's not how discussions work.

[nige1]

Larry the problem is you never provide anything to back your "i'm tired of winning" statements, and you simply ignore questions from other posters. You keep replying with other questions instead. That's why you come across as a troll, you do not discuss, ever. You post some stuff like it's gospel then keep posting one liner replies and rhetorical questions. That's not how discussions work.

I agree with Diana_Eva that some Water-Cooler posters seem happier to ask sophisticated questions than to provide straight-forward answers. It's particularly hard to answer such queries when laced with gratuitous insult. ("troll" insinuations are the mildest recent example).

 

It's a pity. Some Water-cooler topics might attract eclectic views were they not sidetracked and disrupted in this way.

[ldrews]

Larry the problem is you never provide anything to back your "i'm tired of winning" statements, and you simply ignore questions from other posters. You keep replying with other questions instead. That's why you come across as a troll, you do not discuss, ever. You post some stuff like it's gospel then keep posting one liner replies and rhetorical questions. That's not how discussions work.

 

The disagreements on this forum start much more basically than "winning" or "losing" or who is President, etc. The disagreement starts in basic political philosophy.

 

I believe that every individual is sovereign. By that I mean that every individual has a right to attempt to survive, that every individual owns their own body, that every individual owns the products of their own labor, mental or physical, and nobody else has a legitimate claim against those things. By the same token, an individual has no legitimate claim against those same things owned by other individuals.

 

Do you agree or disagree? If you disagree, please explain your beliefs in this area so that we may discuss them.

[Winstonm]

That's the juvenile version.

 

The adult version begins with the yielding or modifying of those claims in order to live together in civilized social groups so that everyone thrives.

[ldrews]

That's the juvenile version.

 

The adult version begins with the yielding or modifying of those claims in order to live together in civilized social groups so that everyone thrives.

 

The pejorative comments are unnecessary.

 

Certainly to live together requires voluntary collaboration. If you have something I want or need then I trade with you or enter into a voluntary agreement to yield some of those claims. Note the use of the word "voluntary". The other party still has no legitimate claim other than what I voluntarily offer.

 

Is this inconsistent with your view?

[andrei]

Oh is that why he had to sell the house? Makes sense - he's such a pathetic loser.

 

Pot

Kettle

[hrothgar]

 

I believe that every individual is sovereign. By that I mean that every individual has a right to attempt to survive, that every individual owns their own body, that every individual owns the products of their own labor, mental or physical, and nobody else has a legitimate claim against those things. By the same token, an individual has no legitimate claim against those same things owned by other individuals.

 

Do you agree or disagree?

 

Fine

 

Let's play.

 

I agree with this set of claims. Now what...

[hrothgar]

 

I believe that every individual is sovereign. By that I mean that every individual has a right to attempt to survive, that every individual owns their own body, that every individual owns the products of their own labor, mental or physical, and nobody else has a legitimate claim against those things. By the same token, an individual has no legitimate claim against those same things owned by other individuals.

 

Do you agree or disagree?

 

Fine

 

Let's play.

 

I agree with this set of claims.

 

However, I also believe that individual have freedom to contract. They can make a voluntary decision to surrender the products of their own labor to third parties (including the "government").

 

They can also make a voluntary decision of the following form: "The citizens of territory 'foo' have chosen to create a social contract. By agreeing to live in territory 'foo', I agree to abide by the terms of said social contract, even if this limits my own personal sovereignty."

 

People can chose to withdraw from said social contract. The cleanest way would be to withdraw from territory 'foo' after first discharging all debts, selling off all your property, etc.

 

In theory, one could chose to withdraw from the contract by breaking the contract. For example, choosing to live within territory foo while refusing to pay taxes. However, in this case one should expect that the government will take action to enforce the contract. And, this action can extend all the way though to coercive force.

 

Please note: I have framed this all in terms of Lockean constructs like the "social contract". If you prefer, one can arise at precisely the same position using the "invisible hand" as did Nozick in Anarchy, State, and Utopia.

[Zelandakh]

I agree with this set of claims. Now what...

It sounds like the start to a standard libertarian argument that the rich cannot be taxed such as here.

 

Interestingly, I have found that almost everyone, regardless of political ideals, tends to believe that their viewpoint is based on the rights of individuals. That is as true for my right-wing nationalist partner as for me as a [European] (not American (left) or German (right)) liberal, even though our positions are almost diametrically opposite. Not quite - my opposite usually comes out roughly as Communism - but close enough.

 

Nationalists focus on the rights of individuals from the State against those of foreigners or other groups that they think should have fewer rights. Libertarians focus on the rights of individual freedom versus the rights of the State. Communists focus on the rights of individuals over the Proletariat. Socialists focus on the rights of indivuals to receive a basic quality of life over the rights of the rich. And classical liberals focus on the rights of individuals to be free and equal.

 

This last word, equal, is fundamentally the difference between (classical) Liberalism and (right) Libertarianism. Both philosophies are built around freedom and individualism with limited central government, many negative rights and generally lassez-faire economics. The most important philosphical difference is that liberals also attach importance to equality. The similarities are no accident. Libertarianism grew from the term liberal being corrupted in America to mean social liberalism through the New Deal era.

 

Many of us call ourselves "liberals." And it is true that the word "liberal" once described persons who respected the individual and feared the use of mass compulsions. But the leftists have now corrupted that once-proud term to identify themselves and their program of more government ownership of property and more controls over persons. As a result, those of us who believe in freedom must explain that when we call ourselves liberals, we mean liberals in the uncorrupted classical sense. At best, this is awkward and subject to misunderstanding.

Here is a suggestion: Let those of us who love liberty trade-mark and reserve for our own use the good and honorable word "libertarian".

The person that is generally credited with promoting the term is Murray Rothbard. Since he was opposing interventionist (New Deal) policies this naturally appealed primarily to conservatives. Of course there are also left-libertarians but this term tends to be used more as a general term for any left wing anti-authoritarian ideal rather than a coherent philosophy in its own right.

 

Anyway, enough of the history. What it means is that I am, in the original 1955 sense, a libertarian in American terms. Yet somehow I tend to find myself disagreeing with almost everything modern (right) libertarians say. Hence I prefer the (UK) term liberal even though that means something quite different in the USA. It also means that I could probably find common ground with Larry quite easily if he were to engage in debate rather than trolling. As I have written, I would welcome that but am not holding my breath. We will see what comes of this latest initiative and where it leads. So far, we have just more of the same - questions and no debate.

[hrothgar]

 

Let's play.

 

 

Now for my question:

 

Why would I want to have this conversation with you when I could have it with David Friedman instead? (Admittedly, I've already discussed this with David on several occasions, however, it seems very unlikely that you're going to come up with some brilliant point that has escaped him)

[Zelandakh]

Why would I want to have this conversation with you when I could have it with David Friedman instead?

Please do Richard. Let this be a final test of whether ldrews is capable of any sort of positive contribution to BBF.

[hrothgar]

 

The person that is generally credited with promoting the term is Murray Rothbard. Since he was opposing interventionist (New Deal) policies this naturally appealed primarily to conservatives.

 

Rothbard was a thoroughly nasty piece of work.

 

Introducing him into conversations quickly leads to discussions around whether or not he was "really" a racist or just pretended to be one to scam money from Ron Paul acolytes...

 

So let's not go there

[barmar]

Please stop the petty bickering between ldrews, hrothgar, and Zelandakh. If you want to argue about politics, that's fine. If your posts are trollish, that's acceptable as free speech.

 

But I don't think any of us are interested in the name-calling and personal attacks. We all know how you feel about each other, it's time to give it a rest.

 

And Zel, keep the arguments here in the WC. Whether ldrews is a troll in a political discussion should have no bearing on how we treat him in the bridge-related areas of the site. Hrothgar is also an a-hole here in the WC, yet he's a fine bridge player.

[ldrews]

Fine

 

Let's play.

 

I agree with this set of claims.

 

However, I also believe that individual have freedom to contract. They can make a voluntary decision to surrender the products of their own labor to third parties (including the "government").

 

They can also make a voluntary decision of the following form: "The citizens of territory 'foo' have chosen to create a social contract. By agreeing to live in territory 'foo', I agree to abide by the terms of said social contract, even if this limits my own personal sovereignty."

 

People can chose to withdraw from said social contract. The cleanest way would be to withdraw from territory 'foo' after first discharging all debts, selling off all your property, etc.

 

Wow! OK, this is the type of discussion I was looking for. I wish to understand where you are coming from, why, and how you got there.

 

So, if an individual is born in a territory, does the birth signify that the individual has agreed to the social contract? If not, at what point is the individual considered to have agreed to the social contract? Is this a conscious agreement? Do the citizens of the territory have any inherent right to impose the social contract on unwilling residents?

 

I am full agreement with the statement that individuals have freedom to contract and can decide to surrender products of their labor to another individual or group. But sans any agreement, the group has no legitimate claim against the individual. And the individual has no legitimate claim against the group.

 

But then, when living with others, the problem arises of individuals who do not respect the ownership of others, or who initiate force or threat of force against others in order to acquire what they want. And there is always the problem of disagreements and/or misunderstandings of agreements, and how to resolve such disputes. And so we reach the justification for some type of mechanism for handling these problems, i.e., some form of authority to resolve/enforce agreements and restrain the initiation of force.

 

This also raises the question of how to pay for such a mechanism. Historically in the US the interested citizens formed an association and divided the costs among themselves. This was how early Sheriffs and schools were paid for.

 

So, keeping the peace, protecting private property, resolving disputes are necessary functions that have to be performed if individuals are going to be able to live together peacefully. Beyond that what are the justifications for a centralized mechanisms, i.e., government? Common defense perhaps.

[Zelandakh]

If your posts are trollish, that's acceptable as free speech.

 

There seems to me to be a fundamental difference between a contributing member of the BBF community with a prickly side and someone who has thus far shown himself only to be interested in internet trolling.

 

If you are saying that being a troll is free speech but calling someone an arsehole for acting like one is not allowed then I am sorry but I find this a very strange line. As I wrote before, if you want to ban me then do but do not expect me to give him a modicum of respect while he acts in this way. if that means calling the fückwit a fückwit, then so be it.

 

From my point of view, he is not welcome here for so long as he only trolls and does not contribute anything.

[hrothgar]

 

So, if an individual is born in a territory, does the birth signify that the individual has agreed to the social contract? If not, at what point is the individual considered to have agreed to the social contract?

 

 

The act of residing in a territory controlled by a government imposes the social contract on an individual.

Conscious choice / agreement don't really enter into it.

 

However, as I mentioned before, a "woke" individual may may be in a position to withdraw from the social contract; Extraterritoriality being one such option.

 

Do the citizens of the territory have any inherent right to impose the social contract on unwilling residents?

 

The citizens do not have a right to impose the social contract on unwilling residents.

However, the government, as the properly constitution agent of said citizens does.

(Feel free to reference "Monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force as a defining characteristic of the state")

 

Note that from a practical perspective, the Whiskey Rebellion pretty much settled this issue in the United States