• Announcements


      D1P 2017 Charity Campaign for The Life You Can Save: $1,515 (as of April 7, 2017)   12/12/2016

      I've decided to extend our charity campaign for The Life You Can Save organizations for the entirety of 2017 so feel free to contribute at any time!  Periodically through the year, I'll have game giveaways for those who have donated to the campaign as a "thank you" for supporting this worthy endeavor!
    • Jason

      Update on the single-device/browser login restriction issue some people are having.   04/04/2017

      4/7/2017 update: Now people who've been affected by this are saying that it went away on its own after about a week. So I dunno, if this would really hugely inconvenience you try to not log in on additional devices/browsers until the 4.2 update that's supposed to hopefully resolve this for good.   original announcement: For a long time now, D1P has been limited to three logins at a time; logging in on a fourth device or browser would log you out everywhere else. Unfortunately, multiple people have been reporting that they've started experiencing being limited to ONE login at a time.   The good news is, Invision Power Services (the company that makes our forum software) is aware of the issue and will be addressing it in version 4.2 of the software, which is the next big update. The bad news is, they announced about a month ago (the beginning of March 2017) that the update will be coming out in "mid 2017", so we probably have at least another couple of months to go before this is resolved.   In the meantime, I apologize to those affected for the inconvenience, and would suggest to everyone else to not log in to additional devices until this is resolved if this is something you don't want to have to have to deal with. I'm still not 100% sure on why it's not affecting everyone and why it didn't hit everyone affected at the same time, but the timing of when the reports of this started here mostly lines up with when I've seen reports of other sites having this issue starting, and I suspect that the problem is trickling in because of people happening to hit a fourth login that logs them out everywhere else, and then proceeding to be limited to one login at a time after that.

      D1Pcast Episode 26: The Retro Show   04/19/2017

      It's time to have that talk with your kids. No not THAT talk, the talk about retro games and how much better things were back in our days! We have @Reputator join us and talk a bit about the Scorpio and some retro PC cards. [email protected] us about console retro gaming and how he just got his Super Mario USA. While @Jason tells us about the day his parents threw out all his retro consoles. A sad day for any gamer. So listen and give us your feed back about your retro gaming experience!    


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Signifyin(g)Monkey last won the day on August 1 2015

Signifyin(g)Monkey had the most liked content!

Community Reputation


About Signifyin(g)Monkey

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  1. That the political rulers of a nation state should reflect the preferences of its populace is one of the cardinal aims of and justifications for democracy. Why would a believer in democracy not want harmony between the views of the citizenry and the views of their rulers?
  2. The public didn't want a military engagement in Syria--go back and look at the polls. Why do you hate democracy?
  3. No, that's just the Internet. I have been banned from Free Republic for posting a thread arguing the issue of Obama's birth certificate is settled, banned from Mises.org for posting a thread arguing Mises' business cycle theory was bunk, banned from RightNation, Townhall, Eagle's forum, conservative's forum, and had my comments deleted from pretty much every right wing blog I've visited--all for simply arguing against right-wing talking points. All the while taking vicious invective against my character for merely arguing a more liberal point of view. Why is that the case if this form of censorship and intolerance for contrarian points of view is exclusive to the left? (Hint: it's not)
  4. This is begging the question. If the police, fire and military were privatized and had to compete for profits, they'd most certainly be excludable and rivalrous. This assertion is false. Begging the question again. Many of the people in nations with nationalized single-payer systems would beg to differ. The article does not explain why they are wrong--it merely asserts they are. And why do you have a right to the services of the police, the military, the fire department, etc.? This is again left unexplained. And the proceedings of every court case must be tailored to the individual defendants, etc. And there are a myriad of externalities that result from privatized healthcare. So, my point still stands-- these are not rigorous arguments, as they do not provide coherent criteria for marking the public/private good divide at all. At best they are based off simulacra of said criteria.
  5. I actually agree with you on some of your points, but even if I grant you the premise that placing something in the public domain makes it inherently less efficient, then the question remains: Why have anything in the public domain? What I'm trying to get across is that arguments like @heyyoudvd's are not rigorous, because they do not have clearly defined criteria for what should belong in the public domain and what should not. And without said criteria, they have no real logical foundation, and cannot coherently explain why something like healthcare should be totally privatized and something like the armed forces should not. Indeed, even @joe's anarchocapitalist views on these matters are more rigorous, even if (IMO) they are totally wrong. On the other hand, I can lay out criteria defining the circumstances under which--given our current socio-economic order--some economic good would work better in the public domain, and the circumstances under which it would not. So my arguments on this matter proceed under a consistency which is lacking in you and dvd's. (and for the record, I too think most economic goods should be private under our current economic system)
  6. Are you arguing that a system of completely privatized courts, police forces and armed forces would be superior under capitalism?
  7. Why don't you support a privatized system of courts and law enforcement, or privatizing the military? Doesn't removing these systems from 'regulation by market forces' make them less efficient?
  8. Oh wait--that last part was in November. Now he's claiming the numbers are 'very real', and that America is 'great again.' And the conservative press, that bastion of integrity that never engages in the hypocrisies of the liberal press, is playing along. El-Oh-El.
  9. But in case you aren't... The history of slavery in general is long, so practically every individual nation could be described as a 'footnote', and its history a series of footnotes, but the U.S.'s place in the history of the Transatlantic Slavetrade is uniquely noteworthy for the longevity of its involvement in it and dependence upon it, and its inability to abolish the practice of chattel slavery associated with it without tearing itself apart into Civil War. The dominance of chattel slavery in terms of the U.S.'s economic output is also unique among the great world powers, as it constituted a larger share of its overall output than the homeland of any major European power: About half of US exports were produced predominantly by plantations using chattel slaves, accounting for about half of US GDP. There is no comparable dependence on the institution in the homelands of the major European powers, even accounting for the contributions their colonies (many of whose economies did have a similar dependence on slavery) made to their overall economic output.
  10. Honestly this sort of semantic horseplay doesn't bother me half as much as right-wing attempts to essentially rewrite the history of slavery to whitewash the fact that the U.S.'s dependence on slavery was uniquely robust among the world's great powers, and that it had a longer-than-average dependence on slavery for its economic output: That ostensibly intelligent people could believe this, and ignore the fact that most of the great powers of Europe had already abolished the institution of slavery decades before the U.S. ended it nation-wide in 1865, (Great Britain in 1833, France in 1848, Germany/Prussia in 1807, Sweden in 1813, Denmark in 1792 and in the West Indies in 1848, Spain with the exception of Cuba in 1835, etc.) all doing so relatively peacefully without devolving into bloody civil wars that tore them apart at the seams, and that they had already pretty much rebuilt their economies on a foundation of purer industrial capitalism--rather than having a whole half of their economies still depend on what was essentially a form of feudalism--is scary.
  11. You apparently do not understand them either. Certainly you have demonstrated that you adhere to no stable definition of 'socialism'; it is just a definition-less term to which you assign whatever traits are useful to your argument at the time, and is consistently denuded of any real historical context. This is also, unfortunately, a popular staple of much of right-wing ideological discourse. (Not to say there are not dissenters--I'm fully willing to admit conservative ideology is not monolithic, just as leftism is not a monolithic ideology) It is much like the term 'free market'. Its definition shifts to suit your arguments, as it does in much right-wing ideology. And none of the varying definitions you use define it as it was understood by Adam Smith and the Classical Economists--although the latter distortion is not your invention. It has been passed on to you by people who have engaged in an Orwellian rewriting of the history of economic thought, such that nowadays Smith would be classified as a 'socialist'.
  12. This thesis is not anymore convincing than it has ever been; creating an abstract 'left' and assigning it a whole bunch of simplified straw-men, and then insisting that the counterexamples (of which there are plenty if you'd bother to look) that prove these are not universal qualities of those who self-identify with political leftism do not exist, is what an ideologue who is incapable of seeing the world in all its shades of grey does. (Not to mention you are one of the more consistent virtue-signallers here, only not to the political left--virtue signalling to the folks at the National Review is still virtue-signalling) And if your own ideology was as self-evidently true and consistent as you portray it, you would not need to consistently rewrite history to support it--but that is something you are constantly doing.
  13. But it's only Dems and Leftists that are anti-free speech, mmmkay?
  14. It is partisan scaremongering, and ludicrous, and you're totally lying to yourself if you think the Republicans wouldn't be doing the same thing to Hillary under similar circumstances, particularly if they were the minority party in both houses. Same goes for 90% of what the Dems are howling about. I can only imagine how crazed the conservative press (and thus you, as our de facto representative of the National Review) would be over an incompetently implemented travel ban like Trump's executed by president Hillary. Oh the overheated editorials it would produce!
  15. I hope you realize the insane shit fit Republicans would be throwing about this if there was even a faint, conspiratorial whiff of an election scandal concerning President Hillary Clinton and Russian interference in the election process.