Autotalent
BMW Garage BMW Meets Register Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   BMW M3 and BMW M4 Forum > BIMMERPOST Universal Forums > Off-Topic Discussions Board > Politics/Religion

Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      06-01-2019, 05:03 PM   #23
Grumpy Old Man
Lieutenant Colonel
Grumpy Old Man's Avatar
Canada
5110
Rep
1,591
Posts

Drives: Porsche 993, 2015 MB GLK
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Niagara on the Lake

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by DETRoadster View Post
I keep coming back specifically because this forum is filled with people that I disagree with. They force me to step back and take a hard look at "facts", "truth", and "evidence" that I took or take for granted as being clear. They challenge me. They frustrate me. They piss me off. But they ultimately make me a more intelligent and well rounded individual. Sometimes they do change my mind. Sometimes we have to agree to disagree because they cant.

I've always voted straight party ticket because I felt I had no other choice. At the national level Im not sure there's anyone on the horizon who is a Republican that I could see myself voting for, but maybe. At the state and local level, certainly. Of the 7 or 8 people in my neighborhood district who are running for city council, I'll be voting for the most conservative of the pack. Maybe that's not saying much. Maybe that's not a big shift. But it's definitely in part because of my overall views shifting over the past few years and a lot of that has to do with the folks on this forum.

So to answer you question, Yes.
I haven't always agreed with your position but it is always well thought out and well supported, and often full of humour. I respect that. Honest debate makes us all smarter....well maybe the rest of you but I'm trying. Good post.
Appreciate 4
SakhirM49058.50
MKSixer12809.00

      06-01-2019, 05:27 PM   #24
Grumpy Old Man
Lieutenant Colonel
Grumpy Old Man's Avatar
Canada
5110
Rep
1,591
Posts

Drives: Porsche 993, 2015 MB GLK
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Niagara on the Lake

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by CigarPundit View Post
I have become convinced over the years that great western political and economic thinkers like Hayek, Friedman, Locke, Montesquieu, Jefferson, Madison, etc. had it fundamentally right: in the main, people pursue their own self interests, and the best system of governance is one that atomizes power as much as possible and limits the roll of government as much as possible to certain core functions: national defense; establishment and evenhanded enforcement of law; and a judiciary to resolve disputes. The goal should be to maximize individual liberty and capitalist free markets, while keeping government as small as possible. This will not result in utopia, because utopia is impossible to attain, and efforts to do so always result in tyranny. But history has shown time and again that individual liberty, small government, and free markets is the best way to improve the standard of living for all citizens.

Although I have given political philosophy a lot of thought, and am pretty firm in my convictions, I think Friedman was right that you need to be humble and truly realize that any one of your firmly held beliefs could be wrong. You need to be open to persuasion. Otherwise you are a mere ideologue and will cease to learn or think critically.

I let these core beliefs guide my voting, and always find myself choosing what I would characterize as the lesser of evils.

Im curious as to whether I am considered one of the five trolls referenced above just because my beliefs tend toward the conservative/classically liberal. I think my posts are generally respectful when it comes to politics, but its hard to know how you are perceived by others.
Well thought out post, I tend to lean more towards Churchill but that's likely because I can relate to him.
Appreciate 2
MKSixer12809.00

      06-01-2019, 05:31 PM   #25
CigarPundit
On the road to serfdom
CigarPundit's Avatar
United_States
829
Rep
555
Posts

Drives: 2018 F80 M3 DCT
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: Los Angeles

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2018 F80 M3 DCT  [0.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by ynguldyn View Post
Nash and Pareto basically put the final nails in the coffin of that idea.
How so?
__________________
"God bless our troops...Especially our snipers.
Appreciate 0
      06-01-2019, 05:37 PM   #26
CigarPundit
On the road to serfdom
CigarPundit's Avatar
United_States
829
Rep
555
Posts

Drives: 2018 F80 M3 DCT
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: Los Angeles

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2018 F80 M3 DCT  [0.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grumpy Old Man View Post
Well thought out post, I tend to lean more towards Churchill but that's likely because I can relate to him.
Churchill was an ardent believer in America's first principles, individual liberty, and the dangers of collectivist/statist thought. I'm a fan.
__________________
"God bless our troops...Especially our snipers.
Appreciate 2
MKSixer12809.00

      06-01-2019, 05:42 PM   #27
Grumpy Old Man
Lieutenant Colonel
Grumpy Old Man's Avatar
Canada
5110
Rep
1,591
Posts

Drives: Porsche 993, 2015 MB GLK
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Niagara on the Lake

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by CigarPundit View Post
Churchill was an ardent believer in America's first principles, individual liberty, and the dangers of collectivist/statist thought. I'm a fan.
He wasn't politically correct, didn't worry about hurting peoples feelings because what was paramount was doing the right thing for the greater good, plus he drank whisk(e)y and smoked cigars.
Appreciate 1
MKSixer12809.00

      06-01-2019, 05:59 PM   #28
///M4ster Yoda
Brigadier General
///M4ster Yoda's Avatar
2726
Rep
3,248
Posts

Drives: '16 F82 M4
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Long Island, NY

iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ynguldyn View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Genieman View Post
Serious question here, if you identify strongly with either side, what would it take for you to SERIOUSLY consider either voting for the other Siders's candidate or even switching sides altogether?
I've always been very much to the left socially (gays are better people than straights, women should be able to abort their kids until the kids are financially independent, all guns should be confiscated, and all religions without exception are evil). This never changed and never will.

However, on all other matters I used to be in the middle, seeing good stuff in the positions of both parties. This ended when GOP started lying, and I don't mean bending the truth and emphasizing the facts beneficial to their position like all politicians have done throughout the ages - I mean straight up lies. Bush admin did that most prominently with Iraq and WMDs. Then it was "death panels" and climate change denial. Now their position on pretty much every important issue is based on lies. Trump who can't even keep track of his lies (every claim he makes - there's always a video or a tweet where he makes the opposite claim) is basically an embodiment of the strategy the party had chosen in the early 2010s.

So, to answer your question: I will seriously consider Republicans again when I see that their positions are based on facts.
Quote:
If you can't change someone's mind your only upside is "winning" a debate which is of little utility.
I'm guessing this is your first visit to the internets?
Wait so your saying that only the GOP lies?

Wow

__________________
'03 330 '04 325 '08 328 '11 335 '11 335is
'14 335 '16 340 (Retired)
4 ED's PCD Summer 2019 ('20 ZCP)
Current Stable: '19 X3 (Wifey) '16 M4 (Mine)
Appreciate 0
      06-01-2019, 10:36 PM   #29
ynguldyn
Colonel
2479
Rep
2,006
Posts

Drives: battery powered tv on wheels
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Boston

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ///M4ster Yoda View Post
Wait so your saying that only the GOP lies?
No. I'm saying that GOP has abandoned any attempts to ground their arguments in fact. What comes out of their leaders' mouths (especially Trump's) is just any random shit that serves their immediate agenda. Democrats are not there (yet?)
Appreciate 0
      06-01-2019, 11:09 PM   #30
ynguldyn
Colonel
2479
Rep
2,006
Posts

Drives: battery powered tv on wheels
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Boston

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by CigarPundit View Post
How so?
Free markets are Pareto efficient only on paper. In real life you need governments to deal with market failures. What is typically understood as a "small government" would not be sufficiently equipped to handle the larger scale failures. Two most obvious examples: infrastructure and climate change.
Appreciate 0
      06-02-2019, 12:07 AM   #31
CigarPundit
On the road to serfdom
CigarPundit's Avatar
United_States
829
Rep
555
Posts

Drives: 2018 F80 M3 DCT
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: Los Angeles

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2018 F80 M3 DCT  [0.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by ynguldyn View Post
Free markets are Pareto efficient only on paper. In real life you need governments to deal with market failures. What is typically understood as a "small government" would not be sufficiently equipped to handle the larger scale failures. Two most obvious examples: infrastructure and climate change.
If you have not read Hayek and Friedman, I would recommend them to you. There are many things upon which economists agree because the empirical evidence is so robust. The proposition that free markets produce greater economic efficiency and productivity than centralized planning by government is one of them.

There is no way for centralized planners to know--much less efficiently utilize--the reasons behind the billions of individual economic decisions that are made by market participants based upon their individual circumstances. The beauty of the price mechanism (the "invisible hand") is that it very quickly and efficiently captures and reflects this data without external management. Politicians allocate resources based upon political self-interest rather than economic self-interest, and the result is inevitably a misallocation of resources and associated economic inefficiency.

As for infrastructure, it can be debated whether and to what extent building infrastructure is a proper role for government. I happen to believe it is, within limits. But there is no evidence that government builds road more economically efficiently than the private sector could. Nor is there any evidence I am aware of that insufficient infrastructure is a "market failure" that results from free markets without governmental intervention. In any event, the question of whether government should construct and maintain infrastructure is separate from whether free markets operate more efficiently and produce better productivity (which translates into standard of living) than socialism (government ownership or control of capital). A decision to tolerate the inefficiency government brings to the construction of infrastructure, because, e.g., it is thought that free and universal access to roads will pay economic dividends or serve philosophical principles that outweigh the inefficiency, is not one based upon efficiency or market failures.

As for climate change, the extent to which man causes it, man can influence it, and it will produce catastrophic consequences, are topics for another thread that will produce endless debate because the answers are uncertain and the debate is highly politicized. However, the question it implies is whether regulatory intervention is required because free markets will not produce good husbandry of our environment. Although environmental husbandry is arguably a proper role of government, I suspect that market demands imposed by a prosperous people would end up producing good husbandry with little, if any, regulation. But there are no real world data points for this proposition that I am aware of, because politics and regulation have taken over in prosperous countries. This is not really evidence of market failure though. The same political will that produces regulations would impose market pressure on industrial polluters as well, particularly when there is a free press and free speech.
__________________
"God bless our troops...Especially our snipers.
Appreciate 5
lakefront161.50
arkie6289.00
DYoung22.50
MKSixer12809.00

      06-02-2019, 01:26 AM   #32
///M4ster Yoda
Brigadier General
///M4ster Yoda's Avatar
2726
Rep
3,248
Posts

Drives: '16 F82 M4
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Long Island, NY

iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ynguldyn View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by ///M4ster Yoda View Post
Wait so your saying that only the GOP lies?
No. I'm saying that GOP has abandoned any attempts to ground their arguments in fact. What comes out of their leaders' mouths (especially Trump's) is just any random shit that serves their immediate agenda. Democrats are not there (yet?)
I hate to burst your bubble but that is true of all politicians regardless of political affiliation. The fact that you think Democrats aren't "there yet" is laughable.
__________________
'03 330 '04 325 '08 328 '11 335 '11 335is
'14 335 '16 340 (Retired)
4 ED's PCD Summer 2019 ('20 ZCP)
Current Stable: '19 X3 (Wifey) '16 M4 (Mine)
Appreciate 0
      06-02-2019, 01:45 AM   #33
ynguldyn
Colonel
2479
Rep
2,006
Posts

Drives: battery powered tv on wheels
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Boston

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by CigarPundit View Post
The proposition that free markets produce greater economic efficiency and productivity than centralized planning by government is one of them.
Why are you talking about centralized planning here at all? No one is trying to establish a USSR-style system. The conversation is about the role of government in a free market economy. My (and pretty much any non-extremist economist's) objection is to the idea that the government has little to no useful function.
Quote:
As for infrastructure, it can be debated whether and to what extent building infrastructure is a proper role for government. I happen to believe it is, within limits. But there is no evidence that government builds road more economically efficiently than the private sector could. Nor is there any evidence I am aware of that insufficient infrastructure is a "market failure" that results from free markets without governmental intervention. In any event, the question of whether government should construct and maintain infrastructure is separate from whether free markets operate more efficiently and produce better productivity (which translates into standard of living) than socialism (government ownership or control of capital). A decision to tolerate the inefficiency government brings to the construction of infrastructure, because, e.g., it is thought that free and universal access to roads will pay economic dividends or serve philosophical principles that outweigh the inefficiency, is not one based upon efficiency or market failures.
Again, you seem to imply that the alternative to purely free markets is socialism. And again I have to point out that I wasn't talking about eliminating the free market system, and that no Western government, even in the countries with the governments much larger than ours, owns asphalt plants or dump trucks. The governments determine what roads are needed, source and allocate funds for design, construction, and maintenance, and choose private companies that do the work. Allowing free markets to manage the whole process will be obviously inefficient.
Quote:
As for climate change, the extent to which man causes it, man can influence it, and it will produce catastrophic consequences, are topics for another thread that will produce endless debate because the answers are uncertain and the debate is highly politicized.
No. There's absolutely no uncertainty. Climate change is real and is caused by humans. The science proved this beyond any reasonable doubt back in the 1990s. Climatologists have pretty much moved on from making this point and are now spending their time feeling smug about being right (the current trends are matching 1980s-1990s models with high degree of precision) and figuring out when exactly we'll all be dead if we don't do anything.
Quote:
However, the question it implies is whether regulatory intervention is required because free markets will not produce good husbandry of our environment. Although environmental husbandry is arguably a proper role of government, I suspect that market demands imposed by a prosperous people would end up producing good husbandry with little, if any, regulation. But there are no real world data points for this proposition that I am aware of, because politics and regulation have taken over in prosperous countries. This is not really evidence of market failure though. The same political will that produces regulations would impose market pressure on industrial polluters as well, particularly when there is a free press and free speech.
Climate change is a classic externality. Free markets are not Pareto efficient in the presence of externalities. Therefore, government intervention is beneficial.

(BTW, note that carbon tax is an effort to convert the externality into straightforward costs, allowing market forces to apply to the situation - a very good example of how government and free market can exist in a symbiotic relationship.)
Appreciate 0
      06-02-2019, 01:47 AM   #34
TheWatchGuy
Major
TheWatchGuy's Avatar
1707
Rep
1,286
Posts

Drives: 335xi
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: CO

iTrader: (0)

the problem with the national level of politics, is the politicians are too worried about being an R or D and not worried about actual issues. Both sides are trash; you have to decide which trash you want to live with. Personally, I tend to vote against the trash that wants to affect my bottom line and wants to limit the federal government which has been more R than D as of late.

at the smaller local and some of the state level, I couldnt tell you what party affiliation most the people i have voted for and interact with often actually are. I vote for the ones that are wanting to bring change to issues i have, and vote against those that want to fix "issues" i dont believe in. Hell, i even ran a more liberal campaign, and won, than my counterpart.

end of the day, we need to shift some of the federal governments power back to the states. the states know what is best for themselves, and what works for a state like texas, isnt necessarily going to work for a state like new york. Federal government is there to make sure the states stay in line, but the states need to make the policies for their states
__________________
@drunkcowatches on ig

Am I a watch guy, or do i watch guys?
Appreciate 0
      06-02-2019, 01:47 AM   #35
ynguldyn
Colonel
2479
Rep
2,006
Posts

Drives: battery powered tv on wheels
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Boston

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ///M4ster Yoda View Post
I hate to burst your bubble but that is true of all politicians regardless of political affiliation. The fact that you think Democrats aren't "there yet" is laughable.
For some reason, I've never seen a good argument that would begin with the words "I hate to burst your bubble."

I think this is because it is always used when the speaker wants to project superior knowledge while having none.
Appreciate 0
      06-02-2019, 01:52 AM   #36
TheWatchGuy
Major
TheWatchGuy's Avatar
1707
Rep
1,286
Posts

Drives: 335xi
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: CO

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ynguldyn View Post
For some reason, I've never seen a good argument that would begin with the words "I hate to burst your bubble."

I think this is because it is always used when the speaker wants to project superior knowledge while having none.
hate to burst your bubble, but what he said isnt false
__________________
@drunkcowatches on ig

Am I a watch guy, or do i watch guys?
Appreciate 1
      06-02-2019, 01:56 AM   #37
ynguldyn
Colonel
2479
Rep
2,006
Posts

Drives: battery powered tv on wheels
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Boston

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheWatchGuy View Post
hate to burst your bubble, but what he said isnt false
What he said did not really address the point I was making.

How many democrats would you need to achieve this: https://www.washingtonpost.com/graph...aims-database/ ?
Appreciate 0
      06-02-2019, 02:00 AM   #38
openwheelracing
Captain
155
Rep
783
Posts

Drives: 5 different 3 Series
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Santa Barbara, CA

iTrader: (0)

I will vote Republican when they are actually fiscally conservative. I see no end in sight bow that Trump has taken over the party. All the good people have left or joined the Dems.
Appreciate 0
      06-02-2019, 02:08 AM   #39
TheWatchGuy
Major
TheWatchGuy's Avatar
1707
Rep
1,286
Posts

Drives: 335xi
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: CO

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ynguldyn View Post
What he said did not really address the point I was making.

How many democrats would you need to achieve this: https://www.washingtonpost.com/graph...aims-database/ ?
unfortunately, only Trumps false and misleading claims are actually tallied.

however, to believe that only the GOP is lying to you, and the Dems are shooting it straight is the result of a clear bias in your thinking.

hell, AOC has won several of those Pinocchio awards from the fact checkers, and shes just getting started.

its time to see politicians for what they are, people that for the most part crave power, money, and fame and will do anything they can to get it. Trump is just an exaggerated version of what dam near every public eye politician does. youd have to go a long way down the list of the federal elected officials that are active in the public eye to find one that isnt.
__________________
@drunkcowatches on ig

Am I a watch guy, or do i watch guys?
Appreciate 3
UncleWede7146.00
MKSixer12809.00

      06-02-2019, 02:11 AM   #40
TheWatchGuy
Major
TheWatchGuy's Avatar
1707
Rep
1,286
Posts

Drives: 335xi
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: CO

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by openwheelracing View Post
I will vote Republican when they are actually fiscally conservative. I see no end in sight bow that Trump has taken over the party. All the good people have left or joined the Dems.
unfortunately, neither side are fiscally conservative. They both spend way too much on the government, just on different things.
__________________
@drunkcowatches on ig

Am I a watch guy, or do i watch guys?
Appreciate 2
MKSixer12809.00

      06-02-2019, 02:13 AM   #41
///M4ster Yoda
Brigadier General
///M4ster Yoda's Avatar
2726
Rep
3,248
Posts

Drives: '16 F82 M4
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Long Island, NY

iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ynguldyn View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by ///M4ster Yoda View Post
I hate to burst your bubble but that is true of all politicians regardless of political affiliation. The fact that you think Democrats aren't "there yet" is laughable.
For some reason, I've never seen a good argument that would begin with the words "I hate to burst your bubble."

I think this is because it is always used when the speaker wants to project superior knowledge while having none.
Well I wasn't attempting to have an "argument" with you. Sometimes I feel the need to point out complete nonsense and your post was full of it. The fact that you can't see it is telling. I know our system is broken in many ways and it's ALL of our politicians that are at fault.

Linking Washington Post articles (that we can't read without a subscription) will not change that.

Oh and Climate science is settled sure gave me a laugh.

When I see posts from people like you I know that they are getting all their news feeds from CNN, MSNBC etc etc..... Sad.
__________________
'03 330 '04 325 '08 328 '11 335 '11 335is
'14 335 '16 340 (Retired)
4 ED's PCD Summer 2019 ('20 ZCP)
Current Stable: '19 X3 (Wifey) '16 M4 (Mine)
Appreciate 1
MKSixer12809.00

      06-02-2019, 02:29 AM   #42
TheWatchGuy
Major
TheWatchGuy's Avatar
1707
Rep
1,286
Posts

Drives: 335xi
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: CO

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ///M4ster Yoda View Post
Well I wasn't attempting to have an "argument" with you. Sometimes I feel the need to point out complete nonsense and your post was full of it. The fact that you can't see it is telling. I know our system is broken in many ways and it's ALL of our politicians that are at fault.

Linking Washington Post articles (that we can't read without a subscription) will not change that.

Oh and Climate science is settled sure gave me a laugh.

When I see posts from people like you I know that they are getting all their news feeds from CNN, MSNBC etc etc..... Sad.
Hey climate science has been settled for several decades now. We are all living underwater from the ice caps melting and rising seas. Or in an Ice Age, or significantly higher temps that cause mass food/water shortages.

I mean, its not like every single one of those climate change alarmist theories that the climate change wackos love to believe has come true yet. But by golly they are getting close to getting one right.
__________________
@drunkcowatches on ig

Am I a watch guy, or do i watch guys?
Appreciate 2
MKSixer12809.00

      06-02-2019, 03:30 AM   #43
///M4ster Yoda
Brigadier General
///M4ster Yoda's Avatar
2726
Rep
3,248
Posts

Drives: '16 F82 M4
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Long Island, NY

iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheWatchGuy View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by ///M4ster Yoda View Post
Well I wasn't attempting to have an "argument" with you. Sometimes I feel the need to point out complete nonsense and your post was full of it. The fact that you can't see it is telling. I know our system is broken in many ways and it's ALL of our politicians that are at fault.

Linking Washington Post articles (that we can't read without a subscription) will not change that.

Oh and Climate science is settled sure gave me a laugh.

When I see posts from people like you I know that they are getting all their news feeds from CNN, MSNBC etc etc..... Sad.
Hey climate science has been settled for several decades now. We are all living underwater from the ice caps melting and rising seas. Or in an Ice Age, or significantly higher temps that cause mass food/water shortages.

I mean, its not like every single one of those climate change alarmist theories that the climate change wackos love to believe has come true yet. But by golly they are getting close to getting one right.
Right. What I find amusing about people like him is the irrational thought processes.

For example:

All religions are evil. Essentially stating that they are fake and a bunch of BS. Ok sure as I can't argue with that as it's faith based. I can understand that point of view.

Then we go onto BLINDLY believing that Man made climate science is settled. Umm No.
__________________
'03 330 '04 325 '08 328 '11 335 '11 335is
'14 335 '16 340 (Retired)
4 ED's PCD Summer 2019 ('20 ZCP)
Current Stable: '19 X3 (Wifey) '16 M4 (Mine)
Appreciate 0
      06-02-2019, 06:34 AM   #44
vocan
Second Lieutenant
176
Rep
297
Posts

Drives: 1M
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Northern exposure

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ynguldyn View Post
I think this is because it is always used when the speaker wants to project superior knowledge while having none.
That's quite an assumption on your part.

And you obviously know what they say about assumptions.
Appreciate 0
Post Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:30 AM.




f80post
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
1Addicts.com, BIMMERPOST.com, E90Post.com, F30Post.com, M3Post.com, ZPost.com, 5Post.com, 6Post.com, 7Post.com, XBimmers.com logo and trademark are properties of BIMMERPOST