The Maelstrom of Violence

[pbrower2a]

(09-11-2017, 11:11 AM)beechnut79 Wrote: filling gas tanks.

There's a job that is pretty much a thing of the past these days. Except in the states of New Jersey and Oregon, where self-serve is illegal.

"Check your tires? Check your filter? Check your fluids?"

Self service turned the business of selling gasoline from a trip to the repair shop where one might be sold a wiper blade before one really needed one into a trip to a convenience store in which you might buy some beer that you didn't need and some cancerweed products bad for you... or some overpriced groceries. Now you get the wiper blades, fluids, and air filter at some place that uses oil changes to attract you.

...The jobs most likely to be lost are unskilled jobs due to various forms of automation.

[Eric the Green]

(09-11-2017, 11:11 AM)beechnut79 Wrote: filling gas tanks.

There's a job that is pretty much a thing of the past these days. Except in the states of New Jersey and Oregon, where self-serve is illegal.

I was surprised to discover this when I drove up to see the eclipse in Oregon. Interesting; one gas-filler guy told me Oregon adopted this law because it rains so much that it's not nice to make people get out of their cars and pump gas. But Oregon isn't the only state where it rains a lot, and New Jersey is probably not one of those states. Oregon has some good ideas and goes its own way a lot.

I'm not sure the law is needed, if gas stations are required instead to provide roofs over the gas tanks and the drive-through areas. I think most CA stations have those.

[Warren Dew]

(09-12-2017, 09:42 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(09-11-2017, 11:11 AM)beechnut79 Wrote: filling gas tanks.

There's a job that is pretty much a thing of the past these days. Except in the states of New Jersey and Oregon, where self-serve is illegal.

I was surprised to discover this when I drove up to see the eclipse in Oregon. Interesting; one gas-filler guy told me Oregon adopted this law because it rains so much that it's not nice to make people get out of their cars and pump gas. But Oregon isn't the only state where it rains a lot, and New Jersey is probably not one of those states. Oregon has some good ideas and goes its own way a lot.

I'm not sure the law is needed, if gas stations are required instead to provide roofs over the gas tanks and the drive-through areas. I think most CA stations have those.

No requirement at all is needed.  If roofs are really an issue, people will go to gas stations with roofs and the other gas stations will have to get them or go out of business.

When I get gas in New Jersey, I preferentially go to a station that looks the other way if you decide to pump your own gas.

[Eric the Green]

(09-12-2017, 10:38 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(09-12-2017, 09:42 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(09-11-2017, 11:11 AM)beechnut79 Wrote: filling gas tanks.

There's a job that is pretty much a thing of the past these days. Except in the states of New Jersey and Oregon, where self-serve is illegal.

I was surprised to discover this when I drove up to see the eclipse in Oregon. Interesting; one gas-filler guy told me Oregon adopted this law because it rains so much that it's not nice to make people get out of their cars and pump gas. But Oregon isn't the only state where it rains a lot, and New Jersey is probably not one of those states. Oregon has some good ideas and goes its own way a lot.

I'm not sure the law is needed, if gas stations are required instead to provide roofs over the gas tanks and the drive-through areas. I think most CA stations have those.

No requirement at all is needed.  If roofs are really an issue, people will go to gas stations with roofs and the other gas stations will have to get them or go out of business.

When I get gas in New Jersey, I preferentially go to a station that looks the other way if you decide to pump your own gas.

Whether a requirement is needed is a matter of opinion, much depending on whether you are a free market conservative like yourself, or whether you think business needs to be regulated for the good of the people. I have no opinion on this particular issue; it was just interesting to experience the difference between Oregon and CA. 

But I am sure that relying on the free market alone does not necessarily lead to a business having no customers if they do not supply what the people need. As a democratic-free-market/socialistic inclined person, I don't agree that the market will necessarily supply what the people need if left to itself. Much experience quite convinces me otherwise.

[Warren Dew]

(09-12-2017, 11:09 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(09-12-2017, 10:38 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(09-12-2017, 09:42 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(09-11-2017, 11:11 AM)beechnut79 Wrote: filling gas tanks.

There's a job that is pretty much a thing of the past these days. Except in the states of New Jersey and Oregon, where self-serve is illegal.

I was surprised to discover this when I drove up to see the eclipse in Oregon. Interesting; one gas-filler guy told me Oregon adopted this law because it rains so much that it's not nice to make people get out of their cars and pump gas. But Oregon isn't the only state where it rains a lot, and New Jersey is probably not one of those states. Oregon has some good ideas and goes its own way a lot.

I'm not sure the law is needed, if gas stations are required instead to provide roofs over the gas tanks and the drive-through areas. I think most CA stations have those.

No requirement at all is needed.  If roofs are really an issue, people will go to gas stations with roofs and the other gas stations will have to get them or go out of business.

When I get gas in New Jersey, I preferentially go to a station that looks the other way if you decide to pump your own gas.

Whether a requirement is needed is a matter of opinion, much depending on whether you are a free market conservative like yourself, or whether you think business needs to be regulated for the good of the people. I have no opinion on this particular issue; it was just interesting to experience the difference between Oregon and CA. 

But I am sure that relying on the free market alone does not necessarily lead to a business having no customers if they do not supply what the people need. As a democratic-free-market/socialistic inclined person, I don't agree that the market will necessarily supply what the people need if left to itself. Much experience quite convinces me otherwise.

A competitive free market always provides what customers on the whole actually prefer.  This may not be to your liking if, for example, you prefer a roof over gasoline that is 2c/gal cheaper, while everyone else prefers the cheaper gasoline, but regulating to your preference against the preferences of everyone else is worse for everyone but you.

[Bob Butler 54]

(09-12-2017, 11:52 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(09-12-2017, 11:09 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(09-12-2017, 10:38 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(09-12-2017, 09:42 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(09-11-2017, 11:11 AM)beechnut79 Wrote: filling gas tanks.

There's a job that is pretty much a thing of the past these days. Except in the states of New Jersey and Oregon, where self-serve is illegal.

I was surprised to discover this when I drove up to see the eclipse in Oregon. Interesting; one gas-filler guy told me Oregon adopted this law because it rains so much that it's not nice to make people get out of their cars and pump gas. But Oregon isn't the only state where it rains a lot, and New Jersey is probably not one of those states. Oregon has some good ideas and goes its own way a lot.

I'm not sure the law is needed, if gas stations are required instead to provide roofs over the gas tanks and the drive-through areas. I think most CA stations have those.

No requirement at all is needed.  If roofs are really an issue, people will go to gas stations with roofs and the other gas stations will have to get them or go out of business.

When I get gas in New Jersey, I preferentially go to a station that looks the other way if you decide to pump your own gas.

Whether a requirement is needed is a matter of opinion, much depending on whether you are a free market conservative like yourself, or whether you think business needs to be regulated for the good of the people. I have no opinion on this particular issue; it was just interesting to experience the difference between Oregon and CA. 

But I am sure that relying on the free market alone does not necessarily lead to a business having no customers if they do not supply what the people need. As a democratic-free-market/socialistic inclined person, I don't agree that the market will necessarily supply what the people need if left to itself. Much experience quite convinces me otherwise.

A competitive free market always provides what customers on the whole actually prefer.  This may not be to your liking if, for example, you prefer a roof over gasoline that is 2c/gal cheaper, while everyone else prefers the cheaper gasoline, but regulating to your preference against the preferences of everyone else is worse for everyone but you.

A classic example is the humble gas can.  In Massachusetts, someone has decided that gas should not be spilled all over the place.  There are all sorts of spring mechanisms in the new cans to prevent it.  These are not easy to get used to.  The theory is the government has interest in saving lives and preventing fire.  The practice is that the insurance companies don't have to pay out as much money, and they have lobbyists.  The practical effect is that a bunch of ordinary people who think gas fires will never happen to them are very angry.

Of course, if by default you do not favor government intervention, it seems obvious that gas fires will never happen to you.  If you do like the nanny state, be relieved, big brother is looking out for you.

Rinse.  Repeat.  Variants of the issue are all over the place.

[David Horn]

(09-12-2017, 11:52 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: A competitive free market always provides what customers on the whole actually prefer.  This may not be to your liking if, for example, you prefer a roof over gasoline that is 2c/gal cheaper, while everyone else prefers the cheaper gasoline, but regulating to your preference against the preferences of everyone else is worse for everyone but you.

If the preference is instant gratification (cheap gas, for instance), but well hidden long term costs make that option bad, should it be allowed?  For decades, we wanted cheaper products delivered quickly, so we ignored intentional pollution that eventually lead to thousands of superfund sites that have had to be mitigated at greatly inflated taxpayer expense. Of course, those taxpayers were not the same people who benefitted from the cheap products produced decades earlier.  Today, the EPA is trying to prevent a repeat of that experience, but industry is wailing about the cost to their businesses.  If they win, then we get cheaper products and our children get the mess to correct later ... if they even can.

This is only one of many similar examples in all fields of endeavor.  It's why our medical care is so expensive and piss-poor to boot.  The market is not a perfect vehicle, not by a long shot.

[Warren Dew]

(09-13-2017, 10:08 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(09-12-2017, 11:52 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: A competitive free market always provides what customers on the whole actually prefer.  This may not be to your liking if, for example, you prefer a roof over gasoline that is 2c/gal cheaper, while everyone else prefers the cheaper gasoline, but regulating to your preference against the preferences of everyone else is worse for everyone but you.

If the preference is instant gratification (cheap gas, for instance), but well hidden long term costs make that option bad, should it be allowed?  For decades, we wanted cheaper products delivered quickly, so we ignored intentional pollution that eventually lead to thousands of superfund sites that have had to be mitigated at greatly inflated taxpayer expense. Of course, those taxpayers were not the same people who benefitted from the cheap products produced decades earlier.  Today, the EPA is trying to prevent a repeat of that experience, but industry is wailing about the cost to their businesses.  If they win, then we get cheaper products and our children get the mess to correct later ... if they even can.

The problem isn't about whether costs are long term or hidden; they are about whether costs are borne by the consumer.  In the case of the gas, the consumers that pay for the cheaper gas are the ones that stand in the rain, so that isn't an issue.

A better example than superfund sites, which have little impact on most Americans' everyday lives, would be the original purposes of the EPA:  clean air and clean water.  Back in the 1960s and 1970s, Lake Erie was so polluted it caught fire regularly, and the air in most major cities was so unhealthy it stank.  This was because consumers who bought goods got the benefit of low prices, but the costs of production processes that polluted were borne by the general population, and not just by the consumers that bought the low priced goods.

In that situation, there's room for government intervention.  Ideally, it would be through taxes that made the consumer pay for the pollution caused by production of his goods.

Quote:This is only one of many similar examples in all fields of endeavor.  It's why our medical care is so expensive and piss-poor to boot.  The market is not a perfect vehicle, not by a long shot.

The problem with our health care system is too much government intervention, not too little.

[David Horn]

(09-13-2017, 12:19 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(09-13-2017, 10:08 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(09-12-2017, 11:52 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: A competitive free market always provides what customers on the whole actually prefer.  This may not be to your liking if, for example, you prefer a roof over gasoline that is 2c/gal cheaper, while everyone else prefers the cheaper gasoline, but regulating to your preference against the preferences of everyone else is worse for everyone but you.

If the preference is instant gratification (cheap gas, for instance), but well hidden long term costs make that option bad, should it be allowed?  For decades, we wanted cheaper products delivered quickly, so we ignored intentional pollution that eventually lead to thousands of superfund sites that have had to be mitigated at greatly inflated taxpayer expense. Of course, those taxpayers were not the same people who benefitted from the cheap products produced decades earlier.  Today, the EPA is trying to prevent a repeat of that experience, but industry is wailing about the cost to their businesses.  If they win, then we get cheaper products and our children get the mess to correct later ... if they even can.

The problem isn't about whether costs are long term or hidden; they are about whether costs are borne by the consumer.  In the case of the gas, the consumers that pay for the cheaper gas are the ones that stand in the rain, so that isn't an issue.

A better example than superfund sites, which have little impact on most Americans' everyday lives, would be the original purposes of the EPA:  clean air and clean water.  Back in the 1960s and 1970s, Lake Erie was so polluted it caught fire regularly, and the air in most major cities was so unhealthy it stank.  This was because consumers who bought goods got the benefit of low prices, but the costs of production processes that polluted were borne by the general population, and not just by the consumers that bought the low priced goods.

In that situation, there's room for government intervention.  Ideally, it would be through taxes that made the consumer pay for the pollution caused by production of his goods.

There are any number of examples of Federal intervention that began in response to some failing in the private sector.  Look at the airlines.  They are pushing more and more people on planes because they can.  Travel is worse than uncomfortable, especially on long flights, and they want to push even more.  It's already life threatening to  some people, but who cares.  Right?  This will lead to a resumption of Federal regulation at some point, because that's the only way to protect the public.  Don't blame the government when that happens.

Warren Dew Wrote:

David Horn Wrote:This is only one of many similar examples in all fields of endeavor.  It's why our medical care is so expensive and piss-poor to boot.  The market is not a perfect vehicle, not by a long shot.

The problem with our health care system is too much government intervention, not too little.

I'm on Medicare and it works really well.  There's even room for private insurance for those who want it.  Part D is bad, but it was the mandate that drug prices could not be negotiated that makes it bad.  I'll be happy to kill that requirement.  So what involvement would you end?  How about the FDA drug approval process.  We can go back to believing what the drug companies say.  Or maybe you wish to kill the requirement that keeps every medical practice from operating an MRI, making them impossibly expensive to use.  Give me an example or two.

[Bob Butler 54]

CNN is presenting Why don't facts matter?  It's a variant of my own culture and values lock perspective, a quick lesson in how the human mind works.

One bit caught my attention...

Tali Sharot Wrote:And while you may assume such biases are a trait of the less intelligent, the opposite is true. Scientists discovered that those with stronger quantitative abilities are more likely to twist data at will. When volunteers in that study were given data about the effectiveness of gun control laws that did not support their views, they used their math skills not to draw more accurate conclusions, but to find fault with the numbers they were given.

Why have human beings' brains evolved to discard perfectly valid information when it does not fit their preferred view? This seems like bad engineering, so why hasn't this glitch been corrected?

Cognitive scientists have proposed an intriguing answer: our brain assesses new information in light of the knowledge it has already stored, because in most cases that is, in fact, the optimal approach. More likely than not, when you encounter a piece of data that contradicts what you believe with confidence, that piece of data is in fact wrong. For example, if I told you I had observed a pink elephant flying in the sky you would assume I was either lying or delusional, as you should. It is a reasonable strategy, but it also means that confidently-held opinions are difficult to change.

Which seems par for the course, but what is to be done about it?

[Eric the Green]

(09-13-2017, 12:19 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(09-13-2017, 10:08 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(09-12-2017, 11:52 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: A competitive free market always provides what customers on the whole actually prefer.  This may not be to your liking if, for example, you prefer a roof over gasoline that is 2c/gal cheaper, while everyone else prefers the cheaper gasoline, but regulating to your preference against the preferences of everyone else is worse for everyone but you.

If the preference is instant gratification (cheap gas, for instance), but well hidden long term costs make that option bad, should it be allowed?  For decades, we wanted cheaper products delivered quickly, so we ignored intentional pollution that eventually lead to thousands of superfund sites that have had to be mitigated at greatly inflated taxpayer expense. Of course, those taxpayers were not the same people who benefitted from the cheap products produced decades earlier.  Today, the EPA is trying to prevent a repeat of that experience, but industry is wailing about the cost to their businesses.  If they win, then we get cheaper products and our children get the mess to correct later ... if they even can.

The problem isn't about whether costs are long term or hidden; they are about whether costs are borne by the consumer.  In the case of the gas, the consumers that pay for the cheaper gas are the ones that stand in the rain, so that isn't an issue.

A better example than superfund sites, which have little impact on most Americans' everyday lives, would be the original purposes of the EPA:  clean air and clean water.  Back in the 1960s and 1970s, Lake Erie was so polluted it caught fire regularly, and the air in most major cities was so unhealthy it stank.  This was because consumers who bought goods got the benefit of low prices, but the costs of production processes that polluted were borne by the general population, and not just by the consumers that bought the low priced goods.

In that situation, there's room for government intervention.  Ideally, it would be through taxes that made the consumer pay for the pollution caused by production of his goods.

Quote:This is only one of many similar examples in all fields of endeavor.  It's why our medical care is so expensive and piss-poor to boot.  The market is not a perfect vehicle, not by a long shot.

The problem with our health care system is too much government intervention, not too little.

No, the problem is that too few people are on it. Everyone should be on it.

[Eric the Green]

(09-12-2017, 11:52 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(09-12-2017, 11:09 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(09-12-2017, 10:38 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(09-12-2017, 09:42 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(09-11-2017, 11:11 AM)beechnut79 Wrote: filling gas tanks.

There's a job that is pretty much a thing of the past these days. Except in the states of New Jersey and Oregon, where self-serve is illegal.

I was surprised to discover this when I drove up to see the eclipse in Oregon. Interesting; one gas-filler guy told me Oregon adopted this law because it rains so much that it's not nice to make people get out of their cars and pump gas. But Oregon isn't the only state where it rains a lot, and New Jersey is probably not one of those states. Oregon has some good ideas and goes its own way a lot.

I'm not sure the law is needed, if gas stations are required instead to provide roofs over the gas tanks and the drive-through areas. I think most CA stations have those.

No requirement at all is needed.  If roofs are really an issue, people will go to gas stations with roofs and the other gas stations will have to get them or go out of business.

When I get gas in New Jersey, I preferentially go to a station that looks the other way if you decide to pump your own gas.

Whether a requirement is needed is a matter of opinion, much depending on whether you are a free market conservative like yourself, or whether you think business needs to be regulated for the good of the people. I have no opinion on this particular issue; it was just interesting to experience the difference between Oregon and CA. 

But I am sure that relying on the free market alone does not necessarily lead to a business having no customers if they do not supply what the people need. As a democratic-free-market/socialistic inclined person, I don't agree that the market will necessarily supply what the people need if left to itself. Much experience quite convinces me otherwise.

A competitive free market always provides what customers on the whole actually prefer.  This may not be to your liking if, for example, you prefer a roof over gasoline that is 2c/gal cheaper, while everyone else prefers the cheaper gasoline, but regulating to your preference against the preferences of everyone else is worse for everyone but you.

No, the free market provides what the business prefers. It provides what is convenient for the business to provide. This usually means buyouts right away, consequent lack of choice, poor wages and working conditions, severe environmental damage. In the case of roofs, the gas stations if not required to provide them, may not provide them if it decides that its market is secure and it's cheaper to not provide the roofs. 

Is the free market actually working in this case without laws? I don't know. Oregon decided a law was needed to maintain service at service stations to help people stay out of the rain. The people of Oregon decided this through their representatives. Nothing wrong with that. I don't know if CA has a law requiring roofs. But many stations have them.

Apparently requirements for gas stations in CA are decided by city ordinance. Elk Grove (near Sacramento) has ordinances that came up first on a google search. Now, can you claim that all of these requirements can be decided by customers deciding whether to shop at gas stations in Elk Grove?
http://www.codepublishing.com/CA/ElkGrov...e2372.html

I'm not advocating laws in this particular case of course; it's just an example of how the free market works, or doesn't work. Sometimes the free market works; sometimes it doesn't. The error on your part (or on the part of some extreme socialist OTOH) is to claim it always or never works.

[Bob Butler 54]

(09-13-2017, 04:27 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: I was discussing this with my wife recently. As I've noted previously, she is the arch-arch-conservative of our household - she makes me look like a Marxist in comparison. We both initially despised Obama care (we have a great employer provided plan, and Obama care has really fucked with it). Be that as it may, when Trump stepped in it, we said to each other, here comes Single Payer. It's almost as if these faux "Rightist" Trump cultists actually want Single Payer. Everything they are doing is setting it up for that outcome. And now, I turn you over to Capitol Hill ... something's a brewing.

Plausible, I guess. Another reason to wait-and-see. If he actually signs it... The red guys have to give a lot of ground somewhere.

[Kinser79]

(09-10-2017, 09:07 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(09-09-2017, 03:42 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(09-07-2017, 07:23 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(09-07-2017, 07:09 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: What does Canada forbid which one wants to see?  What does that say of the 'free speech' advocate?

How about calling men in dresses he and women wearing trousers and attempting to pretend to be guys she.  In Canada one can be jailed for failure to use "proper pronouns".  Of course their government also buys into the notion that there is more than three different genders:  Male, Female, freak of nature.

True, up tp  a point.  This is only an issue if actions are taken.  I tend to think this is more motivational than actionable, but its still new.  We'll have to see.

As I'm seeing it, there are some countries that make it harder to insult and demean.  The conservatives seem to get themselves all worked up emotionally if they can't insult and demean.

I would argue that being insulting and demeaning is a requirement for having freedom of speech.  Some people actually deserve it you know.

[Kinser79]

(09-10-2017, 10:20 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(09-08-2017, 11:43 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: PBR is a white liberal so of course he doesn't get it.  After all he knows more about being black than I do, never mind the fact that I am black.

In general I would say that the problem is that studying, speaking with correct grammar and getting good grades results in success, success that often means leaving the ghetto and the low life's behind.  Some of this could be "caving to the man", some of it could be "them doing that makes me look bad" but to be perfectly honest I think I know the true source.

That source is that the success of those blacks who study, speak with proper grammar and get good grades in school prove that the left's victim narrative is really self-imposed.  That more than anything else aggravates those who are the first to start shouting about other blacks "acting white".

This is no different than the experience of being among the white trash or living in the barrio, and climbing out to some success, great or small.  Nothing unique here.  It still ignores the obvious question: is society better served by assisting this process or just letting it happen on its own.  We have data that shows how much greater the success rate is when society assists. You seem to indicate that this should be an individual effort.  If so, why?

You have data that proves Affirmative Action results in better outcomes?  Really?  Citation is definately needed.

As for the black experience, I would say that it is different between the barrios or the white trash.  Florida has a large latino population (and not just Cubans either--though they tend to make up an elite), we also have a large population of white trash.  But what is different between your typical barrio dweller or trailer park dweller that makes a success from himself from a black man from the ghetto?

The difference is that they are not actively sabotaged by their own race.

As for individual effort, there is only individual effort.  One either puts in the work or one does not.

[Bob Butler 54]

(09-14-2017, 06:24 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(09-10-2017, 09:07 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: As I'm seeing it, there are some countries that make it harder to insult and demean.  The conservatives seem to get themselves all worked up emotionally if they can't insult and demean.

I would argue that being insulting and demeaning is a requirement for having freedom of speech.  Some people actually deserve it you know.

Negative rights traditionally do not convey a right to harm. I don't see the exception.

I do confess a desire to lock extreme partisans in a room together and let them have at it. However, the absolute style of insulting and demeaning sought by some of the alt right has no limits on targets. They seem to be seeking to insult and demean for their own sake. This is not a good way to run a culture.

[Kinser79]

(09-14-2017, 06:53 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(09-14-2017, 06:24 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(09-10-2017, 09:07 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: As I'm seeing it, there are some countries that make it harder to insult and demean.  The conservatives seem to get themselves all worked up emotionally if they can't insult and demean.

I would argue that being insulting and demeaning is a requirement for having freedom of speech.  Some people actually deserve it you know.

Negative rights traditionally do not convey a right to harm.  I don't see the exception.

I do confess a desire to lock extreme partisans in a room together and let them have at it.  However, the absolute style of insulting and demeaning sought by some of the alt right has no limits on targets.  They seem to be seeking to insult and demean for their own sake.  This is not a good way to run a culture.

So you prefer to let the "Lets punch Nazis" crowd run wild then?  Mind you, the alt-left pretty much calls anyone to the right of Mao a Nazi.  The Alt-Right you fear does not exist in a vacuum, it is rather a creation of a left that has run amuck since the 1960s.

As for negative rights, one either has the right to freely speak, which includes being insulting--for example me calling someone an ignoramus is protected speech--or one does not.  If one cannot insult an other, then one cannot truly be said to have freedom of speech.

As for running society, I'm not much interested in having society run by anyone--particularly the government--rather if left to its own devices an equilibrium will arise.  It always does.

[Bob Butler 54]

If the Alt Right and Antifa want to duke it out, I might call the police slowly.  Neither are my favorite people.  However, many of both seem to be seeking out verbal ugliness and violence.  Let them have joy of one another.

But the Alt Right and allies want to be ugly to everyone.  That I don't want.  If that means you don't think you have free speech, so be it.  Your delusion, not mine.  Negative rights never guaranteed a right to harm.  You think this a fine exception to a general rule, while I don't.

Any negative right implies an organization that prevents it from being taken away.  Any negative right that can be abused, that its exercise can cause harm, needs somebody to enforce it.  Some think this is a major reason why "Governments were instituted among Men."  Why is this one special?  Are you suddenly an all out anarchist?

[pbrower2a]

Anti-fascists range from conservatives to communists by way of liberals and socialists. Fascism is nothing but thuggery with a thin veneer of appeal to tradition. Most conservatives recognize the thinness of the veneer and insist upon more than the veneer.

[Kinser79]

(09-15-2017, 10:57 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(09-15-2017, 08:46 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Anti-fascists range from conservatives to communists by way of liberals and socialists. Fascism is nothing but thuggery with a thin veneer of appeal to tradition. Most conservatives recognize the thinness of the veneer and insist upon more than the veneer.

Exactly. I'm a Rightist who's also an Anti Fascist.

Then you should be all primed to support the President, considering that a mere 20 years ago he would be a business democrat, or do you actually buy all the bullshit Clinton News Network has to sell?

Note:  That question is rhetorical.  I don't actually care, I've already figured out what your problem with Trump is.  He's neither a Neocon nor a Neolib.