Never read/heard a Republican OTHER than Yoshi say this.Originally Posted by Thief Silver
I think you're attributing "popular" to "things Yoshi says"but it seems like it's a pretty popular Republican opinion (I don't know many republicans though).
I think the underlying thread is the idea of property acquisition and property rights. If you have "skin in the game" you're more likely to care about policy that effects your property, assets, income, et al.
Or conversely, I like to illustrate the idea of charity vs. welfare - while both aim to satisfy the same ends, their means are different. Also, a charity has more accountibility on its shoulders - if it fails to make good on its promises, misappropriates funds, etc. they stand to lose funding, get outted, become a public spectacle...and people want results from charities, or at least some form of transparency that demonstrates what the group is doing, and how.
Welfare, or any public funded, government mandated expense can be hidden behind red tape, bureaucracy, apathy...at the end of the day, your money is taken before you see it so it doesn't translate the same as giving freely from your wallet. There's less incentive to care about and hold a program accountable because the money never feels like its "yours" to begin with, nor do you have any say in the matter. If you are unhappy with the results you cannot directly pull your own funding, or demand policy change. You have to have crooked intermediates do it.
So it's doubly impacting if you believe in property rights - that not only do you have a right to accumulate wealth, but a right in how that wealth is distributed. Be it within your family, community, charitable causes, selfish desires...the idea is that you earned it, so you should get to have a say in its use.
To that end, that's why I think Yoshi believes those who don't own things shouldn't have a say in policy. Since, again, someone with no skin in the game won't care one way or another how efficiently something is used, is less likely to hold people to their promises, and would be more concerned with the spirit and good intentions of a project than the actual cost, implementation, and results. Not to say that that means he's right...
Old Country Doctor
by the way apparently the fun begins anew today at 10am, evidently yesterday they likened selling pirated media to selling nuclear weapons, had a pizza party and disbanded for the night
e: I'm not even kidding about that pirated media/nuclear arms comparison either, and surprise surprise it was by the representative that had the most funding via big media
I'm all for IP protection (have seen a few artists get their work stolen to get printed at Hot Topic), but this isn't how you protect actual people and intellectual property.
Cronyism is back in a big way, these days.
Hostages? **** em'
Listening to this shit made me so angry.
Some guy would roll out a list of so many valid reasons something is completely retarded and some asshole responds by reading some canned bullshit about domestic revenue and jobs and i don't even
if anything, I don't see how this helps any of those things.
Let's assume that YouTube gets blacklisted (it won't, deep pockets own it now). It would only drive pirated material into deeper, darker corners of the interwebs. Like Pirate Bay - the day that site got "big" was the day anyone with a brain ditched it to avoid potential lawsuits/CnDs. Pirates will always always always find a way. The real way to combat it is to make piracy so cost prohibitive that trying to do it is pricey and trying to buy it pricey-er than the real deal. Or make the legit thing's cost so appealing that alternatives seem ridiculous. Either by means of cost, service, delivery, etc...
Like, I've effectively sworn off EA forever. Their games are developed and published to punish ME, or punish someone who may benefit from me. If I were the kinda guy, I'd see pirating as far more viable than buying - all the content, none of the restriction. The kind of shit that punishes legit customers in the guise of combating piracy while accomplishing nothing is not the solution. So doing More of It, Only Worse isn't either.
These things should be synonymous.
Well said.I think the underlying thread is the idea of property acquisition and property rights. If you have "skin in the game" you're more likely to care about policy that effects your property, assets, income, et al.
Or conversely, I like to illustrate the idea of charity vs. welfare - while both aim to satisfy the same ends, their means are different. Also, a charity has more accountibility on its shoulders - if it fails to make good on its promises, misappropriates funds, etc. they stand to lose funding, get outted, become a public spectacle...and people want results from charities, or at least some form of transparency that demonstrates what the group is doing, and how.
Welfare, or any public funded, government mandated expense can be hidden behind red tape, bureaucracy, apathy...at the end of the day, your money is taken before you see it so it doesn't translate the same as giving freely from your wallet. There's less incentive to care about and hold a program accountable because the money never feels like its "yours" to begin with, nor do you have any say in the matter. If you are unhappy with the results you cannot directly pull your own funding, or demand policy change. You have to have crooked intermediates do it.
So it's doubly impacting if you believe in property rights - that not only do you have a right to accumulate wealth, but a right in how that wealth is distributed. Be it within your family, community, charitable causes, selfish desires...the idea is that you earned it, so you should get to have a say in its use.
To that end, that's why I think Yoshi believes those who don't own things shouldn't have a say in policy. Since, again, someone with no skin in the game won't care one way or another how efficiently something is used, is less likely to hold people to their promises, and would be more concerned with the spirit and good intentions of a project than the actual cost, implementation, and results. Not to say that that means he's right...
can't wake up
No, this is un-democratic bullshit. Who decides what is "skin in the game", the moneyed elite? We fought wars over this shit. Get fucked.
If ten years ago you told me about SOPA and the National Defense Authorization Act I'd call you crazy.
That is so against what this country claims to be about.
"skin in the game" is a silly arguing point and should be avoided. It is purely subjective and only allows groups to mitigate the contributions of others.
Ultimately everyone has skin in the game because we all use and contribute resources. Be it our labor, time, money, land, etc. Who is to say what is worth more?
can't wake up
Rich white people, apparently.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks