ALL HAIL PRESIDENT TRUMP

Individual rights is more revolutionary than ever with the state growing it's tentacles into everything we do. No one likes tyranny. Thankfully republicans got taxes done and gave us a little bit of our rights back...so it seems they are on board in certain ways. Wish they'd go further is all.

BTW I've been married since 19...parties and craiglist hookups and stuff is dead for me so I can talk politics now.

"

CanHasPants wrote:

What is conservativism in the modern era? Pining for the 50’s?

One might say that.

I don't think that's really it, though. I think the main difference between progressives and conservatives is that, while progressives look at the less-governed (that is, freer) elements of our societies with horror and want to use the government (and other institutions) to fix perceived problems with them, conservatives look at those so-called solutions with horror and hope to use government (and other institutions) to fix perceived problems with said solutions.

I don't think that's accurately described as trying to roll back the clock; I think it's saying that a previous step wasn't in the right direction, and trying to correct the course. Conservatism may be reactionary, but it's only regressive if progressive policies actually represent progress.

I've never quite understood why pundits tend to promote one of these or the other, when the commonsense approach would be to seek a little bit of both. Hell, if I had a high degree of confidence that government solutions that aren't effective would be promptly repealed, I'd have a much more permissive and experimental attitude towards progressive policy suggestions.

But that's not what happens. In practice most "conservative" politicians don't undo, and they don't do, either. They don't try to repeal gun control, they simply try to block new gun control legislation; they don't try to cut taxes, they simply oppose new tax increases; and so on. It's as if someone told them when they first got to Congress "just vote 'nay' on everything that doesn't involve the military, and you'll be fine." That's not properly conservative, that's a particularly moronic form of centrism.

That's why I identify as center-right. Not really because I'm in love with conservatism; I'm more of an experimental centrist at heart, honestly. But I've watched government grow and grow without any pruning of the ridiculous waste for so long now that I feel a massive amount of time spent on nothing but undoing leftist policies is a much-needed correction at this point.

"

vmt80 wrote:

I do take even most libertarians would agree on a formal legal system to protect any individual rights. But here´s a trick: it was historically tried, so that nation was stripped of any other social functions, only protecting private property and taking care of national defense. There were less national welfare structures than ever, state provided nothing for the individual except some abstract property rights and strict criminal laws. This was during the 1800's. Europe was rapidly industrializing, consequently giving terrible working conditions for the have-nots.

I disagree with the bolded part. Capitalism is the best system for raising the standard of living for everyone, including the working class; if you look at actual standard of living data from that time, it shows that working in a factory was better than working as a farmer, and improved life for those who didn't move to the city as well.

"

vmt80 wrote:

Incidentally, this gave raise to a new ideology among the working class: socialism. In many ways socialism was a response to a laissez-faire capitalist system

I don't think socialism arose from worse working conditions -- as I said, they improved. I think socialism arose for an extremely straightforward reason: capitalism led to greater wealth inequality, thus an "equality of outcome" movement sprang up to oppose it. Under agrarianism there's a lot of relative economic equality, while under capitalism wealth tends to follow a Paretto distribution (for instance, the top 4% owning 64% of the total stuff). Employers can rather easily offer a wage such that enough people view it as a slight improvement on their standard of living compared to their previous way of life, while still generating enough wealth that owners of capital have a much greater improvement upon their standard of living in relative terms. Thus laborers voluntarily became laborers in the first place because of cold and economic calculation of their self-interest, but later became socialists because of an emotional and sexual calculation of their place in the social hierarchy.

Of course, the fundamental flaw of such Marxism is the fallacy that this aggregation of power to the top would be prevented as they take steps to enact their system. As I'll have a quote explain below, the essence of corporatism is government seizure (or at least destruction) of the means of production of one's competitors, and the seizure of government by oneself. By opening the Pandora's box of state meddling in economics, Marxists erode support for laissez-faire policies that obstruct corporatism and give corporatists cover for their manipulations.

"

vmt80 wrote:

legislative authority never remained or even couldn't remain neutral to different social classes.

So, from my point of view libertarians get it fundamentally wrong how ideologies raise in the first place. It's not like there is a pure form of libertarian utopia to be reached, rather there are different and opposed interest groups, who all fight for the control of legislative instruments. Sooner or later the haves will try to take over the public structures including justice system if no other power is restraining them, and try cement their economic monopoly. That's what corporations try to do, because that is in their shareholders' interest. Therefore, you have an utopia and then there's the realism, or should I say consequences of an utopian thought.

Well, I don't consider the enslavement of the state to special interests -- corporate or otherwise -- to be capitalism. But you have a point that, as capitalism causes wealth to aggregate towards the top, and as Marxists naturally advocate for increased regulation of business, bad stuff happens. To quote Albert Einstein (yes, the physicist) from May 1949, bold mine:

"

Private capital tends to become concentrated in few hands, partly because of competition among the capitalists, and partly because technological development and the increasing division of labor encourage the formation of larger units of production at the expense of smaller ones. The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society. This is true since the members of legislative bodies are selected by political parties, largely financed or otherwise influenced by private capitalists who, for all practical purposes, separate the electorate from the legislature. The consequence is that the representatives of the people do not in fact sufficiently protect the interests of the underprivileged sections of the population. Moreover, under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information (press, radio, education). It is thus extremely difficult, and indeed in most cases quite impossible, for the individual citizen to come to objective conclusions and to make intelligent use of his political rights.

TL;DR: Unrestrained capitalism naturally leads to CNN being fake news. Pretty good prediction.

However, to make an allusion to Asimov's Foundation series, if Einstein is the Hari Seldon to our story, then the internet is the Mule -- the one thing Einstein didn't, and in all fairness couldn't have, predicted. YouTube and other social media platforms allow individuals with little more than a webcam to compete for the title of "the press" against massive corporations. The establishment narrative can be challenged, and is being challenged -- mainstream media has been establishment propaganda for decades and we're just recently getting around to calling them out on it. We finally have a technology that, if it remains as free as it is now, threatens to make capitalism long-term viable.

Although perhaps you're more pessimistic and think it's just a matter of time before corporations force independent voices out of the internet and divide it up amongst themselves. And I'll grant you, they'll certainly try. But the Meme Wars aren't over yet.

"

vmt80 wrote:

Oh, it does remind me how russian communists used their anarchist brethen during the revolutionary years. Once revolution was over, it was time to ditch anarchists*. This is how I also view american politics in light of how corporate interest groups make use of libertarianism (and why from outsiders view it always seems like libertarianism is just a namesake for corporate interests). It's a vehicle for them to cement their own political influence. I mean, big business doesn't give a f'ck about libertarian thought once they've gotten rid of unions, welfare state and de facto equality before legal system. They'll still happily accept all government subsidies for their business, paid with tax money, by their longtime partners and beneficiaries.

I actually don't think you're wrong here. There's definitely corporatist attempts to co-opt the libertarian movement by selectively applying libertarian policy by shifting focus away from anticorporatist positions and for corporatist positions. I'm pretty Libertarian but I think corporations shouldn't be legally recognized at all.

And yes, if we lose the Meme War, we get the bullet too.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

But that's not what happens. In practice most "conservative" politicians don't undo, and they don't do, either. They don't try to repeal gun control, they simply try to block new gun control legislation; they don't try to cut taxes, they simply oppose new tax increases; and so on. It's as if someone told them when they first got to Congress "just vote 'nay' on everything that doesn't involve the military, and you'll be fine." That's not properly conservative, that's a particularly moronic form of centrism.

That's why I identify as center-right. Not really because I'm in love with conservatism; I'm more of an experimental centrist at heart, honestly. But I've watched government grow and grow without any pruning of the ridiculous waste for so long now that I feel a massive amount of time spent on nothing but undoing leftist policies is a much-needed correction at this point.

I'll +1 this.

I see it all the time here in Australian politics at every level from local councils, through to states and finally guys in Federal.

It's also very common in public sector management. I think its because its very easy at a management level to just say no to everything, and maintain things the way they are, letting you blame others for why its all broke. Now if you go out on a limb and actually try and fix stuff your opening yourself up to take the blame when things don't work out so well. Not the best career move.

I'd really love it if people actually based ideas on merit and worked together rather then just towing the party line. But lest face it, thats never going to happen with the large amount of influence 'vested interest' groups can extort.

-Matt.

"

essemoni wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Spoiler

But that's not what happens. In practice most "conservative" politicians don't undo, and they don't do, either. They don't try to repeal gun control, they simply try to block new gun control legislation; they don't try to cut taxes, they simply oppose new tax increases; and so on. It's as if someone told them when they first got to Congress "just vote 'nay' on everything that doesn't involve the military, and you'll be fine." That's not properly conservative, that's a particularly moronic form of centrism.

That's why I identify as center-right. Not really because I'm in love with conservatism; I'm more of an experimental centrist at heart, honestly. But I've watched government grow and grow without any pruning of the ridiculous waste for so long now that I feel a massive amount of time spent on nothing but undoing leftist policies is a much-needed correction at this point.

I'll +1 this.

I see it all the time here in Australian politics at every level from local councils, through to states and finally guys in Federal.

It's also very common in public sector management. I think its because its very easy at a management level to just say no to everything, and maintain things the way they are, letting you blame others for why its all broke.

If this is what you associate with conservatism -- and not unfairly, as these posers are by far the most common type -- then I want you to know I despise them, too. Actually, I probably hate them more, because I bet they haven't managed to bullshit their way into getting you to vote for their sorry asses because you were trying to get a real undoer.

I mean for fuck's sake I voted for Bush in 2000 because he gave this beautiful speech on the virtues of a non-interventionist foreign policy. He made a big deal about Clinton's Serbia campaign, and I was all like "yeah, fuck that shit, waste of lives and money." Can you even imagine how pissed I was by 2004?

The Strozk interview is just political capital for Trump. He came across as being really smug, arrogant, condescending, and extremely salty. My mouth was watering while watching the interview. Strozk's tears were delicious.

Unfortunately thot Lisa Page is having a closed door session. It should be made public.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

In practice most "conservative" politicians don't undo, and they don't do, either.

Tangent: I still believe the crux of our problem is the need for voting reform.

1) Procedural Redistricting: So long as we continue to intentionally redraw maps, whether by partisans or by so called unbiased committee, there is little by way of acting according public demand. The foundational metric for establishing what “public” means is now arbitrary. I propose procedural redistricting, whereby district borders do not change until population quotas are met, either by merging with low population neighbors, or by splitting. Splits and mergers are negotiated solely by the districts involved; other neighbors can have opinions but not votes.

2) Party Line Votes and Third Parties: Already went over this. Completely puts the breaks on third party competition. Either do away with party line votes, change the rules for how a name or party gains exposure on a ballot, or both.

3) Career Politicians: Absent the former two, there is little by way of real competition. Career politicians are good, they have established histories whether they are effective at representing their constituents, but only if there was real risk of losing an election. Presently, constituency is poorly manifest by their representation.

Besides that, one of the right-of-left parties needs to rebrand, of that I am certain. Republican or Libertarian, they need a tomorrow-centric message about today’s problems. Reactionism is a fine response to a disfunctional but empowered opponent, but letting them wear themselves out only goes so far. At some point one needs to preemptively choke off the left turning grinder and do more than stand, but march on one’s own merit.

"

vmt80 wrote:

I get it that some of you, perhaps many, are libertarians. It's very american phenomenon, after all. In nordic context such political views are considered fringe ideology, and quite honestly I believe its basic premises are flawed.

Historically, it's not like libertarian ideas haven't been tried. I think there's a misconception overall between ideologies, or how an ideology is supposed to 'work'. For communists it was about collective, but they were wrong about human nature. Libertarians are making a contrary claim about human nature, and they are being likewise wrong in their individualistic premise (the truth, I believe, as usual, is more messy). Humans are prosocial by nature, which means they WILL build collectives. In fact, there are many instances where such collectives are born spontaneously and being actively attacked upon. Sooner or later it's arbitrary to say, this individual here is free to choose whether he wants to take parts in collective. Do you really think rain forest tribes do such participation inquiries? Or how about a nation state? Do you really think people choose the community they are born into? It's not just about a matter of opinion, but a matter of epistemic question. I do take even most libertarians would agree on a formal legal system to protect any individual rights. But here´s a trick: it was historically tried, so that nation was stripped of any other social functions, only protecting private property and taking care of national defense. There were less national welfare structures than ever, state provided nothing for the individual except some abstract property rights and strict criminal laws. This was during the 1800's. Europe was rapidly industrializing, consequently giving terrible working conditions for the have-nots. Incidentally, this gave raise to a new ideology among the working class: socialism. In many ways socialism was a response to a laissez-faire capitalist system, because legislative authority never remained or even couldn't remain neutral to different social classes. New enterpreunial class used their influence upon national structures for their own interest.

So, from my point of view libertarians get it fundamentally wrong how ideologies raise in the first place. It's not like there is a pure form of libertarian utopia to be reached, rather there are different and opposed interest groups, who all fight for the control of legislative instruments. Sooner or later the haves will try to take over the public structures including justice system if no other power is restraining them, and try cement their economic monopoly. That's what corporations try to do, because that is in their shareholders' interest. Therefore, you have an utopia and then there's the realism, or should I say consequences of an utopian thought. Unfortunately most passionate utopians never admit that their line of thinking can give place to a reaction or that there never was a non-violent way to transmute their imagined view of future society into a lived reality. View of atomized individuality is flawed from the beginning. People construct social collectives, political units and organizations by nature, and those collectives are more powerful than any individual claim of sovereignty. When american trade unions were heavily under fire, it only gave raise to the interest groups opposed to them, namely organized corporate power married with state. I'm quite sure that is not what true libertarians seek, either.

No system is perfect first off. Problem with too much gov is regulatory capture. Many say we live in a oligarchy today where corporations even write the laws (https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746) and it's true because power corrupts and USA is most powerful gov so its most corrupt. The idea of founding fathers was hard limits on what gov could do so that this never happened. Thats why they listed exactly what congress do and put in the 9th and 10th amendments saying basically everything else is left to individual (and states). Anyway the founding of this country is where libertarian stems from so no not unique it's taught in history books in school. Some retain it some don't.

I wont ague that early american history was perfect either. Mainly because they didnt practice what they preached. Black were slaves - slavery is hardly free market. So it was never really tried like u state. Too many vested intrests to try it including founding fathers all but 3 owned slaves.

Edit and you're right about human being social. Thats why we have churches, mosques, Rotary, bars, etc - private solutions to peoples problems the gov tries to destroy. They hate competition.

What you guys miss is Robber barrons like vanderbilt all arose because of gov acting unlawfully and taxing people for say railroads, giving free land to railroads, usuing army to kill indians for railroad, and busting up railroad strikes with police both private and public. So they needed gov to fix the problem they created in the first place but there was zero free market at work in creating any of the Robber Barrons.

Much like today where Big phama charge 25K a month for a pill so someone can live. Gov protects the patent almost forever.

Basically Valiants business model is do zero research, buy companies with drugs, raise price 10000% and use research money to buy off congress for patents into perpetuity.

Here ALL what gov was allowed to do - funny they are failing at many and about 99% of what they do is not listed. In essence they are law breakers. The feds justify doing whatever they want with wild interpretations of general welfare, commerce and necessary and proper clauses. (they why would founder list all these rights individually? just say "general welfare" and be done with it, doh) anyway hard limits were -


The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
(PROGRESSIVE INCOME TAX 16TH AMENDMENT WHIPPED THIS OUT BUT AT LEAST THEY DID IT LEGALLY WITH AN AMENDMENT)

To borrow on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
(FARMED OUT TO PRIVATE FED)

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
(THIS "TIME" HAS BEEN INCREASED EXPONENTIALLY AND IS HARDLY "LIMITED")

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
(PRESIDENT CAN DO WHATEVER HE WANTS AND WE HAVE NOT DECLARED WAR SINCE WW2 AND HAD MANY WARS)

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
— Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution

Several amendments explicitly grant Congress additional powers. For example, the Sixteenth Amendment grants the power to "lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived."