US Politics Mega-thread - Page 905

On February 27 2014 15:21 Mercy13 wrote:


You should work on developing a more nuanced view of "the left."

People on "the right" claim to value equality of opportunity. The belief that in America, as long as you work hard, you will be a successful.

In the real world this is not the case. Many Americans don't get the opportunity to ever obtain a decent education. People struggle with hunger, and worry that they are a couple missed paychecks, or one significant health problem away, from becoming bankrupt or homeless.

People on "the right" don't give a shit about this. Such people deserve what they get, because if they had only tried their very best to succeed they would have been just fine.

Personally, I don't care about equality of outcome or predictable uniformity or whatever you want to call it. I think people should be given an equal chance to succeed, no matter where they are born or who their parents are, or whatever health conditions they develop. There are many ways to accomplish this that are consistent with "the right's" basic ideology, but they don't even acknowledge a problem. Oh well, at least "the right" is fighting for our right to be assholes to minorities.

See how annoying it is when someone lumps your sincerely held beliefs into a caricature? I think many people who consider themselves conservatives don't think like this, though perhaps you do. Either way, please stop referring to "the left" as if you have a clue about what real world liberals actually think.

On February 27 2014 15:27 Introvert wrote:


I already said: in a perfect world, it's all a values game. I do value some things over others. There are NO impartial participants in this discussion. No one here is unbiased, no one here is saying that all views are equally good or right. If that were true, then this thread wouldn't exist.

My original purpose was to point out that "diversity" is about as far down the list of progressive concern as one can go. Different people values different things. For you, it's about achieving "equality." An impossible goal, and one I don't value.

Technology advances, but I agree. Some are better off than others. I'm saying that's not bad! I'm not denying your statement as a pure fact (though I do think it's debatable), but I'm saying "so what?" Individuals (IMO where the focus should be) can advance from any station in life. Now more than almost any other time in history!

If I may point out an irony: you dislike wealth so much, yet here there you sit with a smart phone or computer, richer than most of the world. You encourage a government large enough to impose your morality while criticizing the religious for opposing gay marriage. You advocate a system that would always end up being run by the people you find "immoral."

On February 27 2014 15:32 Introvert wrote:

I interact with the left all the time. I read what they have to say, I see what they do. I have a good grasp. I've pointed out the inconsistencies, and how their rhetoric doesn't match what actually happens. I have no doubt that Igne or you sincerely believe what you do (in the sense of fairness), but it has nothing to do with diversity. Or fairness. Just IMO.

I claim we should move closer to a system of equal opportunity, in the sense that the same rules apply to everyone. Not that everyone should have a 23.7% of earning $100,000. That's a distinction no one seems capable of grasping. That's really fair. That's what's fair in every other facet of life.

Some do start out in bad conditions, and fewer of those people make it out. So? This will ALWAYS be the case, so stop trying to change it when all you do is over burden the system and curb the rights of everyone. Equality in misery is not a noble goal.

People are different in almost every imaginable way, so the only equality that is achievable is that of equality under the law, where the laws are as few as needed. All other systems will fail.

On February 27 2014 16:05 cLAN.Anax wrote:
One's personal inclinations towards charity are mutually exclusive to the policies they advocate the state to enforce. Generosity is best given freely, not redistributed by force.

On February 27 2014 15:50 IgnE wrote:


That is false. Economic mobility is decreasing. You claim to love freedom, and yet you are literally apathetic towards the massive suffering of people in poverty. Literally billions of brains are being wasted, as they live stressful lives trying to scrape a living together. You are dooming billions to economic slavery to preserve your vaunted freedom to be rich. The real irony is that the boom period for capitalism is ending. In the next 20 years the contradictions of capital and the burgeoning energy crisis will disillusion you of this quaint libertarianism.

I haven't said anything about the size of government have I?

Guys, it will always be the case. It just will ok? And because that's true we shouldn't try to make things any better or different. But boy am I glad that I hit the birth lottery. It would suck to not be rotting in a hell hole on the Indian subcontinent instead of on here pontificating about freedom.

On February 27 2014 16:19 Introvert wrote:


I said it's better than almost any time in history. Maybe you shouldn't speed read posts.

Brains being "wasted" is what would happen in spades if everyone was forced to bend to your view and adopt your morality.

I'm not apathetic, I'm just not of the opinion of that more government can fix it. In this country, things are getting worse as YOUR ideology takes more and more control. Abroad, I'm not saying "no foreign aid!" or something like that. I think there are better ways than stealing from some and just giving it to others to make a meaningful difference. There is also a more moral way






People are different and the world is complex. The more you attempt to control it, the worse it gets, because you don't actually know how to work it.

I never said don't improve! Things CAN be improved, if you let people do it themselves. I'm saying it is a fundamental fact of human nature that what you want is unattainable. Moreover, you don't have to TAKE from some for others to do well. Tell me, why do YOU value wealth so much? You accused me of caring too much about it, but yet that's what you are constantly whining about.

The fundamental problem is that your solution (the state) will not bring about the goal you will require. You are trying to contrast reality (economic mobility declining, human imperfection, and everything else that is currently part of reality) with your view of utopia (while ignoring the danger of the state).

On February 26 2014 23:07 KwarK wrote:

Like all "invisible hand" based arguments this assumes perfect consumers acting with perfect information while discriminatory businesses are competing with an otherwise equal business that has the same access to the market.

On February 27 2014 16:49 IgnE wrote:


I haven't said anything about the government. I could be an anarcho-syndicalist for all you know. You keep focusing on this "taking." Fundamentally the problem is that you were born with X amount of resources, resources that you did not earn, and have no real moral claim to other than mere happenstance. Yet you are worried about someone born into poverty "taking" some of this from you. Foreign aid is garbage. It rarely comes with no strings attached and is mostly a way for the west to feel good about themselves without actually changing anything.

You have a blind faith that "things can be improved." That rising tides lift all boats. There is a significant paradigm shift going on right now, at the beginning of the 21st century. Constant growth cannot continue forever and is in fact in imminent jeopardy. Despite your blithe attitude, the reality is that substantial improvements in total wealth are slowing down and may plateau for a long time. Simply throwing your hands up and saying it will sort itself out is immoral.

I care about wealth because I have empathy for and understand the plight of the working poor. Economic exploitation takes a serious toll on life satisfaction and health. I am for a fully human life experience, one that values reproductive life endeavors as much as productive ones. That requires a world where people aren't constantly selling their labor for slave wages so that capitalists can reap the surplus wealth. People who are worked into the ground, pinching every penny, and dulling their pain with alcohol, cheap sugar, and other drugs, are not able to contribute to the flowering of society. You fail to understand that people working 2 or 3 jobs don't have the energy or time to cultivate a good life. That is not freedom at all. Freedom is a commodity that is bought and sold on the markets just like everything else. If you win the birth lottery you have the resources and opportunity to buy some measure of freedom such that you aren't constantly working soulless jobs just to make ends meet.

On February 27 2014 17:03 Introvert wrote:


We've gone over this before. Everything you want requires a powerful state. I know that working 3 jobs leaves you no time for anything else. My point is that the state isn't going to improve the situation.

Things will get better if we take the right approach, obviously. I am not of the illusion that things necessarily move "forward." The progressive movement has taught us this much, not to mention the rest of human history.

When it comes to the "hellholes," I'd say that getting involved with the world economy is a good way out of poverty. Not dropping things on them. "Here you go!" Everyone strives to do better, if someone judges that to be wealth and you take it from them, then what is the incentive? What is the incentive on the part of the recipient? What % of blacks in this country are still on welfare? A better economy does them good, not an endless line of care packages.

So that's really the point. You haven't talked much about government, but it's the only mechanism for achieving your goals. Thus, it is highly relevant to the discussion. That's why I say that what you want, even if I agreed with it philosophically, would be impossible to do.

On February 27 2014 17:09 IgnE wrote:


That's false, a confederation of revolutionary individuals would serve just as well as a government.

On February 27 2014 17:14 Introvert wrote:


If that were true, they would never stay that way. Some sort of structure would emerge. You think we could redistribute wealth from the entire Western world without some sort of governmental structure?

I think we've reached the terminus of this conversation. When we start talking about a (presumably large) number of (hopefully) nonviolent revolutionaries, there doesn't seem like much more to talk about...

I am curious how you think this would actually work, however. I would maintain that even were such an event to occur, some sort of government or managing body would emerge, and it must have enormous power. That would place us back in the same predicament.

On February 27 2014 17:22 IgnE wrote:


You are conflating corruption of government with the contradictions of capital. It confuses a lot of people.

On February 27 2014 17:30 Introvert wrote:


ok, then enlighten me.

I'm saying that all governments are prone to increase their own power and are subject to corruption. Whether they can be corrupted with cash or with teddy bears won't change the one way slide to totalitarianism that every government slowly goes for. There will never be a government (or a large enough set of individuals) to enforce this system without having it increase in size and power. How could you think otherwise?

On February 27 2014 17:36 IgnE wrote:


So when I referenced anarcho-syndicalism earlier you had no idea what I was talking about? What about social anarchism? You are missing like some basic concepts in your political vocabulary.

I care about wealth because I have empathy for and understand the plight of the working poor. Economic exploitation takes a serious toll on life satisfaction and health. I am for a fully human life experience, one that values reproductive life endeavors as much as productive ones. That requires a world where people aren't constantly selling their labor for slave wages so that capitalists can reap the surplus wealth. People who are worked into the ground, pinching every penny, and dulling their pain with alcohol, cheap sugar, and other drugs, are not able to contribute to the flowering of society. You fail to understand that people working 2 or 3 jobs don't have the energy or time to cultivate a good life. That is not freedom at all. Freedom is a commodity that is bought and sold on the markets just like everything else. If you win the birth lottery you have the resources and opportunity to buy some measure of freedom such that you aren't constantly working soulless jobs just to make ends meet.

On February 27 2014 17:48 Introvert wrote:


I forgot about that. In previous conversations we have discussed government, and you seemed to defend its role.

But my point was that it doesn't matter. ANY power structure is going to work for it's own good. And a power structure always will emerge. We are back to these models that (I personally think) are impossible. People are flawed and ambitious, so every theory is unworkable in the long run, and must be re-tooled. But it seems to me that those systems which emphasize less action on the part of the governing body will be the best, even if they don't last as long. Like democracies.

Even true anarchy itself is only possible for a short time, as someone will always arise to lead and establish order. People are flawed, ambitious, and like order. All of these things will thus carry out to any structure designed by men. It's what makes governing bodies both necessary and dangerous.

Edit: if you want to keep asking me about particular theories, then there isn't much to say. It's not really part of current discourse... bringing up a whole bunch of other ideologies you might not even like isn't helpful.

On February 27 2014 18:16 Danglars wrote:
If there was any summary of the two sides in this argument, it really stems from the bolded part. I hear people like you say quite compassionately that they empathize with the poor--understand aspects of their plight and day-to-day life. I wonder then why they suggest policies that hurt the poor, that keep more people poor compared to the lack of the policies, that reflect callousness to the disastrous effects of those policies. In many conversations on my alternate ideas, the accusation surfaces that mine reveal personal indifference to the plight of the poor, and an apathetic worldview. I saw the Zizek earlier, so maybe I may put in this: One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results... The people who go around talking about their soft heart — I share their — I admire them for the softness of their heart, but unfortunately, it very often extends to their head as well, because the fact is that the programs that are labeled as being for the poor, for the needy, almost always have effects exactly the opposite of those which their well-intentioned sponsors intend them to have.

On February 27 2014 18:23 IgnE wrote:


You don't seem to know much about them and so you are missing the point. Here is your argumentation so far:

Liberals wants us all to have equal wealth. But government is bad, and I think we should be able to strive for great wealth.

I say: Your political and economic framework is immoral, billions of people are cursed to economic slavery, brains and lives are being wasted.

You say: But government. It's bad. The only solution is less of it.

I say: There are plenty of viable political frameworks that aren't monolithic guardians of capitalism and that are based on more just principles to save billions of people from grinding poverty, while providing greater freedom for people to be more fully human.

You say: But all power structures are eventually corrupted. I want democracy because . . . it's corrupt too. But it's what we got so let's just stick with it.

. . .

You argue for anarchism before saying that anarchism eventually morphs into not-anarchism. Therefore let's do nothing. This is working well enough. But it's not working well enough. The system is broken. You can't argue that we can't change anything because all government is bad. You want just enough anarchism so that you can hold onto your private property, barricade yourself in your walled exurb, and live comfortably, while the wailing of the unfortunate is drowned out by mindless distractions. You should just come right out and say that you don't mind the violence of economic exploitation, so long as we have a government strong enough to protect those who own things. You shun actual physical violence, while perpetuating slavery. It's a nice interpretation of Rousseau's "man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains."

Anarcho-syndicalism is democratic. Social anarchism is democratic. People have direct input into the community decisions that affect them. This isn't about government per se. This is about the economic assumptions that undergird every single thought you seem to have. I know it's hard to imagine a world where the mode of production is different from the American-led, but not entirely American-practiced, neoliberalism of the last 30 years, but you really lack imagination here.




That's just the Fox news mis-summary of what you think I've been saying because you weren't really listening.

I say: There are plenty of viable political frameworks that aren't monolithic guardians of capitalism and that are based on more just principles to save billions of people from grinding poverty, while providing greater freedom for people to be more fully human.

You argue for anarchism before saying that anarchism eventually morphs into not-anarchism. Therefore let's do nothing. This is working well enough. But it's not working well enough. The system is broken. You can't argue that we can't change anything because all government is bad. You want just enough anarchism so that you can hold onto your private property, barricade yourself in your walled exurb, and live comfortably, while the wailing of the unfortunate is drowned out by mindless distractions. You should just come right out and say that you don't mind the violence of economic exploitation, so long as we have a government strong enough to protect those who own things. You shun actual physical violence, while perpetuating slavery. It's a nice interpretation of Rousseau's "man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains."

Anarcho-syndicalism is democratic. Social anarchism is democratic. People have direct input into the community decisions that affect them. This isn't about government per se. This is about the economic assumptions that undergird every single thought you seem to have. I know it's hard to imagine a world where the mode of production is different from the American-led, but not entirely American-practiced, neoliberalism of the last 30 years, but you really lack imagination here.

My arguments are based on a foundational principle of increasing the overall freedoms of humanity.

That's just the Fox news mis-summary of what you think I've been saying because you weren't really listening.

Edit: You are changing the topic of conversation back to your inapposite talking points because you are uncomfortable engaging with the ideas I'm actually talking about. Please stop. My arguments are based on a foundational principle of increasing the overall freedoms of humanity. My empathy for the plight of the poor only informs my views and prevents a callous disregard of others even though I may be comfortably well off in comparison.

I care about wealth because I have empathy for and understand the plight of the working poor. Economic exploitation takes a serious toll on life satisfaction and health. I am for a fully human life experience, one that values reproductive life endeavors as much as productive ones. That requires a world where people aren't constantly selling their labor for slave wages so that capitalists can reap the surplus wealth. People who are worked into the ground, pinching every penny, and dulling their pain with alcohol, cheap sugar, and other drugs, are not able to contribute to the flowering of society. You fail to understand that people working 2 or 3 jobs don't have the energy or time to cultivate a good life. That is not freedom at all. Freedom is a commodity that is bought and sold on the markets just like everything else. If you win the birth lottery you have the resources and opportunity to buy some measure of freedom such that you aren't constantly working soulless jobs just to make ends meet.

On February 27 2014 18:46 Introvert wrote:


If that's all you took from my argument then this is hopeless.

My primary point was that what you want is impossible. My secondary point is that wealth is not bad. That's a moral judgement and thus there is not much ground to be gained.

so when you say



You are missing the point. Capitalism is not the point of what I was saying.

I am contending that your statement is simply wrong. When you put a structure in place with few rules but lots of "action" going on you are just as subject to a form of tyranny as being under a monarch. I'll keep repeating it because it's relevant: people are flawed, ambitious, and like order. You cannot change this. So a system that ignores these traits is worse than one that doesn't because the end result is worse than the alternative.




I'm not arguing for doing nothing. To the contrary, I'm here arguing for a return to Constitutional principles. So I agree, the system is broken! But why replace it with a more tyrannical and less competent system? One that ignores the flaws inherent in humanity and the problems of mob rule?

Here you have the great advantage of idealism vs reality. My view has been more closely followed (though still not followed much recently) than yours. You imagine some place where seemingly everyone is free and works the perfect amount, and the group controls individuals that get in the way. That system is A) prone to corruption more than a Constitutional system, and B) easily susceptible to a single charismatic individual or group that gains popularity in hard times.



You mean increasing your preferred freedoms of humanity. Where everyone thinks the same and does the same. No real freedom, but at least everyone on earth can afford an iphone! You are the one that seems to think that no other way can lift people from poverty, that it's nothing but exploitation that got us here.

Your view is NOT FEASIBLE. You can complain all you want about what we have (I certainly do!) but your solutions simply appear as fantasy that starts out nice but descends to something worse than what we have.