People Rigging Election

By -
Roundly mock man for claiming election is rigged.

Comments

  1. Thomas L. Knapp11:16 AM

    Well, Trump and Clinton are both claiming the election is rigged, and for the same reason (so the one who loses has something to blame it on).

    Her claim is a little more subtle than his -- and a lot more dangerous, because she's blaming the rigging on a foreign power.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. gcallah12:09 AM

      "Rigged" to me here means "set up so that no one out side the ruling elite can win."

      And it only takes manipulation of public opinion to rig it that way.

      Delete
  2. Adam Szczepanski5:47 PM

    It is hard to break into these parties, yes!? And they even rig the game for themselves and their own, in a myriad of ways! But I don't think the election is being thrown at a Post Office in Columbus Ohio! Hahahaha

    ReplyDelete
  3. Samson Corwell7:43 PM

    Sort of begging the question? Who is doing the rigging and how is it being done and towards what ends?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. gcallah12:07 AM

      I think you mean "raising the question."

      But...

      "Who is doing the rigging..."

      The ruling elite.

      "how is it being done"

      Manipulating public opinion.

      "towards what ends?"

      Maintaining their rule.

      Delete
  4. Prateek9:02 AM

    To be fair, I don't see the practice of super delegates in DNC as rigging.

    The Democratic Party is a private organization that can nominate whomever it wants, whether or not they win the primaries or not. If people don't like it, they can run for another party.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Keshav Srinivasan9:08 AM

    Gene, Trump is claiming more than that. He's not just talking about the media/elites manipulating public opinion. He's also talking about widespread voted fraud. That claim is what attracting so much derision. There is no reason to think that we have a significant voter fraud problem in this country.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Thomas L. Knapp10:13 AM

    The problem with that notion is that both major party candidates are members in good standing of the ruling elite; a win by either one would ensure continued maintenance of that elite's rule. Looks more like a final split between the two factions of the elite, an end to their 130-year "it's all good as long as ONE of us wins" bargain.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

In ancapistan, if you have no property, you have no rights

By -
Ancaps often declare, "All rights are property rights." I was thinking about this the other day, in the context of running into libertarians online who insisted that libertarianism supports "the freedom of movement," and realized that this principle actually entails that people without property have no rights at all, let alone any right to "freedom of movement." Of course, immediately, any ancap readers still left here are going to say, "Wait a second! Everyone owns his own body! And so everyone at least has the right to not have his body interfered with." Well, that is true... except that in ancapistan, one has no right to any place to put that body, except if one owns property, or has the permission of at least one property owner to place that body on her land. So, if one is landless and penniless, one had sure better hope that there are kindly disposed property owners aligned in a corridor from wherever one happens to be to wherever the...
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose...
Read more

Against their will / we were taxing against their will / we were young and we were strong and we were taxing against their will

By -
Never one to allow a mistake to go uncompounded by a glaring error, Bob Murphy digs in deeper . He claims that "Taking money from people against their will is not akin to getting on the treadmill; it is akin to killing people against their will." Bob has introduced a largely irrelevant criterion here with his "against their will." Let us start with killing. (No, no, not killing Bob : we still love him despite his obstinacy.) The justice of a killing does not depend at all on whether the "victim" wants to be killed. If I shoot someone who is attempting to set off a nuclear weapon in Times Square, the fact that I killed him "against his will" does not make my killing immoral. And if a friend who is in despair asks me to shoot him in the head, the fact that he wants me to kill him would not make my action moral. Similarly, in taking money from people, the crucial question is whether you are taking it justly or unjustly, not whether they wan...
Read more