Re: Will Trump actually debate Sanders?

by **xsanguine** 2016-05-27, 10:33

Individuals come together and say... Hey, I've got this idea, who wants to do this? You you you you and you.... Okay, let's pool our resources together and make it happen.

Abracadabra!

by **xsanguine** 2016-05-27, 10:36

I know you statists think the only way things can get done is to threaten people with violence and steal their resources from them... But not only do I think that's unnecessary I think it's unethical. People can make choices for themselves on what they feel is the best use of their resources.

by **xsanguine** 2016-05-27, 10:39

I jumped the gun specifying "you", TN. I always assumed you're not a statists... I should have just said...."I know statists..."

by AnomanderRake 2016-05-27, 10:51

Trump has nothing to lose and plenty to gain by debating Sanders.

1) The charity aspect makes him look good for trying to help women
2) It makes Hillary look bad for refusing to debate Bernie.
3) It gives Trump a chance to appeal to Bernie voters
4) The ratings and publicity would be absolutely insane.

by **Turtleneck** 2016-05-27, 11:24

xsanguine wrote:I have no problem with people collectively making decisions. I have a problem with people collectively making decisions for others that aren't interested in their solutions. Unless it involves coercion people should be allowed to do what they want or don't want.

xsanguine wrote:Individuals come together and say... Hey, I've got this idea, who wants to do this? You you you you and you.... Okay, let's pool our resources together and make it happen.

Abracadabra!

There is an inherent contradiction here.

In any society, you have a range of issues and problems that impact everybody. Therefore, since these are collective issues and problems, policy-making should flow from collective decision-making. While everybody is impacted, there will unlikely be consensus about the best policies needed to manage those issues and problems. Some people will identify their self-interest as being harmed and seek to exist outside any policy approaches. If you have enough people existing outside the policy approach, it minimizes the chances of the policy being successful. How do you get everybody to comply when near universal compliance is necessary for a policy to be successful? I will not go into great detail here, but the international community is a great example of this problem. You can think of sovereign states as individuals. Since international law is not binding like domestic law, states often do not comply when it is not in there interest to do so. A prime example is the Kyoto Protocol in 1997, or human rights generally speaking. In light of conflicting interests, and people that have divergent preferences, how do you make decisions and ensure compliance when compliance is necessary?

by **xsanguine** 2016-05-27, 11:40

Turtleneck wrote:
xsanguine wrote:I have no problem with people collectively making decisions. I have a problem with people collectively making decisions for others that aren't interested in their solutions. Unless it involves coercion people should be allowed to do what they want or don't want.

xsanguine wrote:Individuals come together and say... Hey, I've got this idea, who wants to do this? You you you you and you.... Okay, let's pool our resources together and make it happen.

Abracadabra!

There is an inherent contradiction here.

In any society, you have a range of issues and problems that impact everybody. Therefore, since these are collective issues and problems, policy-making should flow from collective decision-making. While everybody is impacted, there will unlikely be consensus about the best policies needed to manage those issues and problems. Some people will identify their self-interest as being harmed and seek to exist outside any policy approaches. If you have enough people existing outside the policy approach, it minimizes the chances of the policy being successful. How do you get everybody to comply when near universal compliance is necessary for a policy to be successful? I will not go into great detail here, but the international community is a great example of this problem. You can think of sovereign states as individuals. Since international law is not binding like domestic law, states often do not comply when it is not in there interest to do so. A prime example is the Kyoto Protocol in 1997, or human rights generally speaking. In light of conflicting interests, and people that have divergent preferences, how do you make decisions and ensure compliance when compliance is necessary?

These issues you speak of, Kyoto and human rights violations... You're forgetting the state's role in creating those problems in the first place. You're still not defending the fact that in order to get "compliance" (a nice, cheery word) you need to use coercion in order to do so. So why is it okay to threaten people into compliance and use violence against them when they don't comply? If you have an instance where there's human rights violations, that is initiating violence and a response to that violence is then justified to being used. If there's slaves being held in Uganda, you want to help them... I want to help them. We get together with other likeminded people and pool our resources together in order to formulate a plan to helping those individuals.

There is a contradiction within your statist solution.

by **Travis of the Cosmos** 2016-05-27, 11:40

AnomanderRake wrote:Trump has nothing to lose and plenty to gain by debating Sanders.

1) The charity aspect makes him look good for trying to help women
2) It makes Hillary look bad for refusing to debate Bernie.
3) It gives Trump a chance to appeal to Bernie voters
4) The ratings and publicity would be absolutely insane.

Trump has little to gain from it. A lot more to lose. I'm not sure where your thinking on that is going. It's the exact opposite and that's why it won't happen. Bernie is the one that has nothing to lose.

by **Turtleneck** 2016-05-27, 12:09

xsanguine wrote:
Turtleneck wrote:

There is an inherent contradiction here.

In any society, you have a range of issues and problems that impact everybody. Therefore, since these are collective issues and problems, policy-making should flow from collective decision-making. While everybody is impacted, there will unlikely be consensus about the best policies needed to manage those issues and problems. Some people will identify their self-interest as being harmed and seek to exist outside any policy approaches. If you have enough people existing outside the policy approach, it minimizes the chances of the policy being successful. How do you get everybody to comply when near universal compliance is necessary for a policy to be successful? I will not go into great detail here, but the international community is a great example of this problem. You can think of sovereign states as individuals. Since international law is not binding like domestic law, states often do not comply when it is not in there interest to do so. A prime example is the Kyoto Protocol in 1997, or human rights generally speaking. In light of conflicting interests, and people that have divergent preferences, how do you make decisions and ensure compliance when compliance is necessary?

These issues you speak of, Kyoto and human rights violations... You're forgetting the state's role in creating those problems in the first place. You're still not defending the fact that in order to get "compliance" (a nice, cheery word) you need to use coercion in order to do so. So why is it okay to threaten people into compliance and use violence against them when they don't comply? If you have an instance where there's human rights violations, that is initiating violence and a response to that violence is then justified to being used. If there's slaves being held in Uganda, you want to help them... I want to help them. We get together with other likeminded people and pool our resources together in order to formulate a plan to helping those individuals.

There is a contradiction within your statist solution.

First of all, I do not have a solution. I am pressing you on your solution. The reason I do not have a solution is because a stateless society is hard to achieve, or at least much harder than what you are describing here. Additionally, I never advocated for the state in my post. I presume you are asserting that I did advocate for the state so you have something to counter.

Second, international politics is unlike domestic politics because there is no central authority. In my analogy the state in international politics is analogous to the individual in your society. Yes, the state creates the problems I referenced. In your society individuals create the problems. So your first point misunderstands or misrepresents what I posted. In any event, I am asking you how to achieve compliance. The mere fact that you jump right to some commentary about coercion actually helps make my case. Even you cannot think of how to build consensus when divergent preferences are at play without coercion.

by **xsanguine** 2016-05-27, 12:32

You're asking me to build consensus against a phantom issue, though. We don't have consensus now... If we don't have consensus then, what is the issue? You can come to a consensus without coercion. To force others to do. Your bidding is not a consensus, it is simply the initiation of force.

My entire stance is based on one group of individuals using violence against other individuals and that being unethical. That's the basis of my entire philosophy. So branching out from there... What do you need consensus on? Consensus on things like roads, health care, water, sewage, etc. can all be handled by a free market. This individual or collective of individuals provides a service and those who want to trade their resources for that service can do so. If they suck at their jobs, then the market dictates the consensus for that by people deciding not to trade their resources for it.

I'm assuming you're solution is a statist society because you've made it clear you disagree with a stateless society. What problems are the individuals causing my society that can't be handled by a collection of individuals? We don't have a collective stomach to eat, we don't have a collective mind to think. So the unit, in ethics, is the individual. It is not about sacrificing for others and dying for others... But it's also not about others sacrificing and dying for you, either. The smallest minority is the individual. The framework for everything is the individual, not the group.

by **Robert J Sakimano** 2016-05-27, 12:40

I think I saw or read somewhere that Trump has said he was just kidding.

I don't think there is any way he'll debate Sanders. The people who care already know that Trump is an idiot - and I'm sure Sanders wouldn't be as limp-wristed and wimpy with him as Cruz, Rubio, et al. were. He's got nothing to gain by it.

by **Turtleneck** 2016-05-27, 13:07

xsanguine wrote:You're asking me to build consensus against a phantom issue, though. We don't have consensus now... If we don't have consensus then, what is the issue? You can come to a consensus without coercion. To force others to do. Your bidding is not a consensus, it is simply the initiation of force.

Uhh...I am asking you show me how that works. How do you build consensus and get people to comply without coercion? What are you going to do to incentivize compliance on collective action issues. You keep sidestepping this question. The dodge is becoming increasingly less artful. Do you watch Game of Thrones?

My entire stance is based on one group of individuals using violence against other individuals and that being unethical. That's the basis of my entire philosophy. So branching out from there... What do you need consensus on? Consensus on things like roads, health care, water, sewage, etc. can all be handled by a free market.

Maybe look up the results of the privatized water and sewage before making that assumption. In most of the cases where municipalities privatized water and sewer, it ranged from mixed results to disaster. Taking a basic human need - something required for survival - and putting it in the hands of the for-profit sector is not a good idea. Costs go up and service goes down. You are so concerned about everybody being treated equally, yet in this case you are justifying giving a benefit away to a minority (a corporation and its shareholders) at the expense of the people.

This individual or collective of individuals provides a service and those who want to trade their resources for that service can do so. If they suck at their jobs, then the market dictates the consensus for that by people deciding not to trade their resources for it.

I'm assuming you're solution is a statist society because you've made it clear you disagree with a stateless society.

You keep doing this, and it seems more like trickery than anything else. Because I push for an answer you assume I disagree. That is not the case. I just want to know how anarchists dating back to the 18th and 19th centuries struggled to devise a feasible stateless society, but a random guy on the Internet has it all figured out.

What problems are the individuals causing my society that can't be handled by a collection of individuals? We don't have a collective stomach to eat, we don't have a collective mind to think. So the unit, in ethics, is the individual.

It is not about sacrificing for others and dying for others... But it's also not about others sacrificing and dying for you, either. The smallest minority is the individual. The framework for everything is the individual, not the group.

Sorry about the .gif. It was rude but I felt like adding it anyway.

by AnomanderRake 2016-05-27, 13:21

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:
AnomanderRake wrote:Trump has nothing to lose and plenty to gain by debating Sanders.

1) The charity aspect makes him look good for trying to help women
2) It makes Hillary look bad for refusing to debate Bernie.
3) It gives Trump a chance to appeal to Bernie voters
4) The ratings and publicity would be absolutely insane.

Trump has little to gain from it. A lot more to lose. I'm not sure where your thinking on that is going. It's the exact opposite and that's why it won't happen. Bernie is the one that has nothing to lose.

I'm not seeing much downside for Trump. What do you think the negative outcomes would be for him?

by **Rocinante** 2016-05-27, 13:24

Will Trump actually debate Sanders? - Page 2 Tumblr_o30frwa0Jm1s4f4t0o1_500

that guys hair is mesmerizing.

by **xsanguine** 2016-05-27, 13:40

First, let's start with a corporation. That is a statist creation. Corporations don't exist absent a government. Corporations are not responsible for their actions because governments have give the individuals that make up the corporation immunity from their actions. We're talking about privitization in a free market, not in a statist economy.

I don't watch Game Of Thrones, not much of a TV guy. How do you build consensus without coercion? I feel like this is a trick question. You simply have participation without coercion. If someone doesn't want to participate in whatever it is you're trying to do, they should have the freedom to abstain from that. I'm not sure what you're trying to get at here.

I'll say it again. My philosophy stems from a society absent coercion. You branch out from there. Can we agree that coercion, force, and initiation of violence are unethical? Let's start there.

by **xsanguine** 2016-05-27, 13:42

I'm a fan of gifs, TN. No worries there

by **xsanguine** 2016-05-27, 13:44

Governments aren't responsible for their actions, either. In fact, they have immunity when they screw up, also. I'm not sure how that is a better alternative (Flint, for example).

by **Travis of the Cosmos** 2016-05-27, 15:37

AnomanderRake wrote:
Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

Trump has little to gain from it. A lot more to lose. I'm not sure where your thinking on that is going. It's the exact opposite and that's why it won't happen. Bernie is the one that has nothing to lose.

I'm not seeing much downside for Trump. What do you think the negative outcomes would be for him?

Getting destroyed? Looking like an even bigger idiot? Farting on stage? Anything?

There's no upside to him debating someone that isn't his opponent. There's a reason why he's backing off of what he said....

by **Turtleneck** 2016-05-27, 15:45

Trump has nothing to lose with his core supporters. They are oblivious to his idiocy and would love for him to him fart on stage.

It is the skeptical and reluctant R voters he needs to worry about. He has not been on a debate stage with less than four people. He will have a harder time dodging issues and hiding behind insults. He has become more policy aware in recent months, but when it comes to substance he is far behind Sanders and light years behind Clinton. He risks pushing those skeptical and reluctant R voters elsewhere, or seeing them withdraw their support. However, he risks nothing with his core supporters.

by **xsanguine** 2016-05-27, 15:56

Turtleneck wrote:when it comes to substance he is far behind Sanders and light years behind Clinton.

Which is the most depressing part of the entire thing.

by **Travis of the Cosmos** 2016-05-27, 15:58

Turtleneck wrote:Trump has nothing to lose with his core supporters. They are oblivious to his idiocy and would love for him to him fart on stage.

It is the skeptical and reluctant R voters he needs to worry about. He has not been on a debate stage with less than four people. He will have a harder time dodging issues and hiding behind insults. He has become more policy aware in recent months, but when it comes to substance he is far behind Sanders and light years behind Clinton. He risks pushing those skeptical and reluctant R voters elsewhere, or seeing them withdraw their support. However, he risks nothing with his core supporters.

With his core supporters... But his core supporters aren't going to win the election.

by **Turtleneck** 2016-05-27, 16:21

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:
Turtleneck wrote:Trump has nothing to lose with his core supporters. They are oblivious to his idiocy and would love for him to him fart on stage.

It is the skeptical and reluctant R voters he needs to worry about. He has not been on a debate stage with less than four people. He will have a harder time dodging issues and hiding behind insults. He has become more policy aware in recent months, but when it comes to substance he is far behind Sanders and light years behind Clinton. He risks pushing those skeptical and reluctant R voters elsewhere, or seeing them withdraw their support. However, he risks nothing with his core supporters.

With his core supporters... But his core supporters aren't going to win the election.

That is my point, Travis. It is why he does have something to lose.

by **Travis of the Cosmos** 2016-05-27, 16:40

Turtleneck wrote:
Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

With his core supporters... But his core supporters aren't going to win the election.

That is my point, Travis. It is why he does have something to lose.

Oh I'm sorry. I get confused easy sometimes. I should read more and work less.

by **Turtleneck** 2016-05-27, 17:42

Sanders campaign: CBS and ABC offered charitable donations to host debate

http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2016/05/sanders-campaign-cbs-and-abc-offered-donation-for-debate-

by Sponsored content