|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On November 07 2017 01:35 Mercy13 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2017 01:31 Gorsameth wrote:On November 07 2017 01:25 Mercy13 wrote:On November 07 2017 00:50 KwarK wrote:Joint Committee on Taxation says the Trump tax plan will produce a revenue shortfall of $1,470,000,000,000 over 10 years. Normally that would kill it in the Senate. However by passing a budget that included a $1,500,000,000,000 shortfall they have grandfathered this increase in the deficit in. Some reading on budget reconciliation https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/10/15/how-budget-reconciliation-broke-congress-215706and the Trump tax plan https://www.journalofaccountancy.com/news/2017/nov/tax-reform-legislation-details-201717798.htmlIncidentally does anyone remember Trump saying he would pay off the deficit within 8 years? I do. Donald Trump: “We’ve got to get rid of the $19 trillion in debt.” Bob Woodward: “How long would that take?” Trump: “I think I could do it fairly quickly, because of the fact the numbers…” Woodward: “What’s fairly quickly?” Trump: “Well, I would say over a period of eight years. And I’ll tell you why.” Woodward: “Would you ever be open to tax increases as part of that, to solve the problem?” Trump: “I don’t think I’ll need to. The power is trade. Our deals are so bad.” Woodward: “That would be $2 trillion a year.” Trump: “No, but I’m renegotiating all of our deals, Bob. The big trade deals that we’re doing so badly on. With China, $505 billion this year in trade. We’re losing with everybody.” Isn't it dead in the Senate anyway, because it increases the deficit after the 10 year window? Have enough senators come out saying they will oppose it? Or are we assuming they will. Its not impossible to think that they will pass a bad bill just to get something though after the repeated failures with Healthcare. And taxes are a lot easier to lie about to your constitutions then explaining why their premiums tripled overnight. I think it violates Senate rules, so even if it has 50 Senators it is DOA. I'm pretty sure that in order to use the budget reconciliation process to pass a bill it can't increase the deficit outside of a 10 year window. That's why the Bush tax cuts weren't permanent.
Oh, you mean that way. Well y I assume it has a 1.5 trillion shortage over 10 years that it will have further shortage past that, unless they make it all temporary
|
On November 06 2017 23:37 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2017 22:06 xDaunt wrote:On November 06 2017 15:06 IgnE wrote:On November 06 2017 13:45 xDaunt wrote:On November 06 2017 13:29 Danglars wrote:On November 06 2017 13:07 xDaunt wrote:
Jesus, Igne. I have my work cut out for me. This may take a day or two. Lawyer first  I’m happy to acknowledge underlying tensions in conservatism in principle. A lot of what makes conservatism conservatism is not ideological, but a set of mixed civilizational virtues in part opposition and part strain with each other. Some of the referenced political formulations I’ve found lacking in the past, but you go for first take since it’s closer to what you do for a living. Well, my initial thought upon reading that post was that the tensions were overstated due to the framing being a bit off, but I think a lot of it depends upon what kind of "conservative" that you're talking about. Igne's post is going to look different depending upon whether you read it through the lens of a libertarian-conservative, a religious right conservative, or a neocon/Bush conservative. The framing depends on my probably inadequate summary of nuanced concepts. If I had more than a couple pages (or a lot more time) to make my points it would probably cohere better. But it's also a first attempt at trying to recontextualize this debate over "Western Culture" and trying to point out why I think conservatives are the ones missing the forest for the trees. It's looking different depending on the type of conservative lens is really a product of your initial formulation of "individual liberty, inalienable rights, …" I think the American Right, as a whole, is aligned in practice, if not theory, with what might loosely be identified as "neoliberal" economic principles (even if at this point the word has kind of devolved into a buzzwordy jargon word). I think those economic principles are actually what unites the various factions on the Right, more than any single commitment to roll back abortion, stop immigration, or any other social policy. I don't think that you're wrong here. In fact, I would broaden the link the from "economic freedom" to "individual freedom." And more to the point, I think that this emphasis upon individual freedom (nice job distilling its philosophical etiology, btw) is the root of the American Right's struggle to effectively respond coherently to the culture wars of the past few generations. Traditional American conservatism lacks the framework and vocabulary to deal with such issues. As any libertarian will tell you, America First tariffs, border controls, repatriating wealth, and nationalistic rivalry is antithetical to individual freedom. Borders are an artificial imposition on the natural free movement of peoples, tariffs are theft from the consumer and a bureaucratic distortion of the free market, wealth must be allowed to flow to where it is deemed to have the greatest utility, and nationalism seeks to achieve what is best for the nation, which is an artificial construct, rather than allowing individuals to choose what is best for them. The Republicans have left freedom a long way behind them.
well without borders there is no Law either
nomos comes from nemein -- to distribute, to possess, or to dwell
the border in the ancient greek town was literally the wall which collected the town and set it apart as a political community. "town" has similar etymological roots to Zaun -- fence, border -- separating the juridical order of civilization from nature
but maybe that was your point
|
On November 06 2017 23:20 mortyFromRickAndMort wrote:
Do you think Trump might actually be retarded / senile?
He tweets about how Bowe Bergdahl should get the death penalty, thereby making sure that Bergdahl gets a sentence as lenient as possible. I'm assuming Trump's legal people explain this to him. Then he goes off on a rant about the Muslim terrorist in NY should get the death penalty as well, again making sure that he gets as lenient a sentence as possible. Just a week later.
How is someone who spent 70 years living in the US that oblivious of that dynamic, unless they are retarded?
All evidence suggests he's not a smart person, for one thing. He also has the very short sighted bravado/escalation mentality which you see playing out in North Korea for example, where there's an undeniable escalation, NK has tested an ICBM and a hydrogen bomb for the first time during Trump's term, etc. His everyday tweets may seem harmless (and when it suits their argument, those who voted for Trump will appeal to this supposed harmlessness), but really they are not.
|
|
|
On November 06 2017 23:20 mortyFromRickAndMort wrote:
Do you think Trump might actually be retarded / senile?
He tweets about how Bowe Bergdahl should get the death penalty, thereby making sure that Bergdahl gets a sentence as lenient as possible. I'm assuming Trump's legal people explain this to him. Then he goes off on a rant about the Muslim terrorist in NY should get the death penalty as well, again making sure that he gets as lenient a sentence as possible. Just a week later.
How is someone who spent 70 years living in the US that oblivious of that dynamic, unless they are retarded?
Some level of mental defect is indisputable.
|
On November 07 2017 02:38 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2017 23:37 KwarK wrote:On November 06 2017 22:06 xDaunt wrote:On November 06 2017 15:06 IgnE wrote:On November 06 2017 13:45 xDaunt wrote:On November 06 2017 13:29 Danglars wrote:On November 06 2017 13:07 xDaunt wrote:
Jesus, Igne. I have my work cut out for me. This may take a day or two. Lawyer first I’m happy to acknowledge underlying tensions in conservatism in principle. A lot of what makes conservatism conservatism is not ideological, but a set of mixed civilizational virtues in part opposition and part strain with each other. Some of the referenced political formulations I’ve found lacking in the past, but you go for first take since it’s closer to what you do for a living. Well, my initial thought upon reading that post was that the tensions were overstated due to the framing being a bit off, but I think a lot of it depends upon what kind of "conservative" that you're talking about. Igne's post is going to look different depending upon whether you read it through the lens of a libertarian-conservative, a religious right conservative, or a neocon/Bush conservative. The framing depends on my probably inadequate summary of nuanced concepts. If I had more than a couple pages (or a lot more time) to make my points it would probably cohere better. But it's also a first attempt at trying to recontextualize this debate over "Western Culture" and trying to point out why I think conservatives are the ones missing the forest for the trees. It's looking different depending on the type of conservative lens is really a product of your initial formulation of "individual liberty, inalienable rights, …" I think the American Right, as a whole, is aligned in practice, if not theory, with what might loosely be identified as "neoliberal" economic principles (even if at this point the word has kind of devolved into a buzzwordy jargon word). I think those economic principles are actually what unites the various factions on the Right, more than any single commitment to roll back abortion, stop immigration, or any other social policy. I don't think that you're wrong here. In fact, I would broaden the link the from "economic freedom" to "individual freedom." And more to the point, I think that this emphasis upon individual freedom (nice job distilling its philosophical etiology, btw) is the root of the American Right's struggle to effectively respond coherently to the culture wars of the past few generations. Traditional American conservatism lacks the framework and vocabulary to deal with such issues. As any libertarian will tell you, America First tariffs, border controls, repatriating wealth, and nationalistic rivalry is antithetical to individual freedom. Borders are an artificial imposition on the natural free movement of peoples, tariffs are theft from the consumer and a bureaucratic distortion of the free market, wealth must be allowed to flow to where it is deemed to have the greatest utility, and nationalism seeks to achieve what is best for the nation, which is an artificial construct, rather than allowing individuals to choose what is best for them. The Republicans have left freedom a long way behind them. well without borders there is no Law either nomos comes from nemein -- to distribute, to possess, or to dwell the border in the ancient greek town was literally the wall which collected the town and set it apart as a political community. "town" has similar etymological roots to Zaun -- fence, border -- separating the juridical order of civilization from nature but maybe that was your point
that's a rather bleak view that equates law with the dictate of some philosopher king over the polis. Were you just elaborating or defending this?
|
Papa Johns has told racists not to eat its food, after a neo-Nazi website claimed the pizza chain was the official pie of the alt-right.
The Daily Stormer posted a picture of a swastika pizza after the CEO of official NFL sponsor Papa Johns blamed his company’s recent losses on players kneeling during the national anthem to protest police brutality.
But after the Nazi pizza fiasco, Papa Johns issued a clear message to neo-Nazis and other hate groups, warning them off their products.
Peter Collins, the senior director of public relations at Papa Johns, said in a statement: “We condemn racism in all forms and any and all hate groups that support it.”
“We do not want these individuals or groups to buy our pizza,” he added.
Papa Johns CEO John Schnatter’s comments about the NFL were widely criticized, after he suggested he would be pulling advertising from the league over the police brutality protests.
Defending the pizza CEO, Adrian Sol wrote for The Daily Stormer, which refers to the NFL using racist language: “This might be the first time ever in modern history that a major institution is going to be completely destroyed explicitly because of public outrage over their anti-white agenda.”
Sol also shared a picture of a swastika pizza and mulled: “Papa John: Official pizza of the alt-right?" in comments that prompted the company to insist racists should not buy their pies.
www.newsweek.com
Warning : picture of a swastika picture. (Is that illegal in germany?)
|
On November 07 2017 03:47 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2017 02:38 IgnE wrote:On November 06 2017 23:37 KwarK wrote:On November 06 2017 22:06 xDaunt wrote:On November 06 2017 15:06 IgnE wrote:On November 06 2017 13:45 xDaunt wrote:On November 06 2017 13:29 Danglars wrote:On November 06 2017 13:07 xDaunt wrote:
Jesus, Igne. I have my work cut out for me. This may take a day or two. Lawyer first I’m happy to acknowledge underlying tensions in conservatism in principle. A lot of what makes conservatism conservatism is not ideological, but a set of mixed civilizational virtues in part opposition and part strain with each other. Some of the referenced political formulations I’ve found lacking in the past, but you go for first take since it’s closer to what you do for a living. Well, my initial thought upon reading that post was that the tensions were overstated due to the framing being a bit off, but I think a lot of it depends upon what kind of "conservative" that you're talking about. Igne's post is going to look different depending upon whether you read it through the lens of a libertarian-conservative, a religious right conservative, or a neocon/Bush conservative. The framing depends on my probably inadequate summary of nuanced concepts. If I had more than a couple pages (or a lot more time) to make my points it would probably cohere better. But it's also a first attempt at trying to recontextualize this debate over "Western Culture" and trying to point out why I think conservatives are the ones missing the forest for the trees. It's looking different depending on the type of conservative lens is really a product of your initial formulation of "individual liberty, inalienable rights, …" I think the American Right, as a whole, is aligned in practice, if not theory, with what might loosely be identified as "neoliberal" economic principles (even if at this point the word has kind of devolved into a buzzwordy jargon word). I think those economic principles are actually what unites the various factions on the Right, more than any single commitment to roll back abortion, stop immigration, or any other social policy. I don't think that you're wrong here. In fact, I would broaden the link the from "economic freedom" to "individual freedom." And more to the point, I think that this emphasis upon individual freedom (nice job distilling its philosophical etiology, btw) is the root of the American Right's struggle to effectively respond coherently to the culture wars of the past few generations. Traditional American conservatism lacks the framework and vocabulary to deal with such issues. As any libertarian will tell you, America First tariffs, border controls, repatriating wealth, and nationalistic rivalry is antithetical to individual freedom. Borders are an artificial imposition on the natural free movement of peoples, tariffs are theft from the consumer and a bureaucratic distortion of the free market, wealth must be allowed to flow to where it is deemed to have the greatest utility, and nationalism seeks to achieve what is best for the nation, which is an artificial construct, rather than allowing individuals to choose what is best for them. The Republicans have left freedom a long way behind them. well without borders there is no Law either nomos comes from nemein -- to distribute, to possess, or to dwell the border in the ancient greek town was literally the wall which collected the town and set it apart as a political community. "town" has similar etymological roots to Zaun -- fence, border -- separating the juridical order of civilization from nature but maybe that was your point that's a rather bleak view that equates law with the dictate of some philosopher king over the polis. Were you just elaborating or defending this?
no it doesn't. there weren't any actual philosopher kings in any ancient Greek polises. but to be a member of the body politic and to be under the force of Law you had to have property within the city boundary.
slaves, wives, and children residing in the household were subject to the prepolitical despotic power of the head of the household. they were not strictly bound by Law because they didn't participate in the political sphere
maybe you just want to draw a boundary around the whole earth. eliminate or banish Nature entirely
|
On November 07 2017 03:49 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +Papa Johns has told racists not to eat its food, after a neo-Nazi website claimed the pizza chain was the official pie of the alt-right.
The Daily Stormer posted a picture of a swastika pizza after the CEO of official NFL sponsor Papa Johns blamed his company’s recent losses on players kneeling during the national anthem to protest police brutality.
But after the Nazi pizza fiasco, Papa Johns issued a clear message to neo-Nazis and other hate groups, warning them off their products.
Peter Collins, the senior director of public relations at Papa Johns, said in a statement: “We condemn racism in all forms and any and all hate groups that support it.”
“We do not want these individuals or groups to buy our pizza,” he added.
Papa Johns CEO John Schnatter’s comments about the NFL were widely criticized, after he suggested he would be pulling advertising from the league over the police brutality protests.
Defending the pizza CEO, Adrian Sol wrote for The Daily Stormer, which refers to the NFL using racist language: “This might be the first time ever in modern history that a major institution is going to be completely destroyed explicitly because of public outrage over their anti-white agenda.”
Sol also shared a picture of a swastika pizza and mulled: “Papa John: Official pizza of the alt-right?" in comments that prompted the company to insist racists should not buy their pies.
www.newsweek.comWarning : picture of a swastika picture. (Is that illegal in germany?)
It is in any case it is legal to view, so no warming required.
And in context of news, arts and history it is also legal to show it, even though most media would still refuse to publish it.
|
On November 07 2017 03:49 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +Papa Johns has told racists not to eat its food, after a neo-Nazi website claimed the pizza chain was the official pie of the alt-right.
The Daily Stormer posted a picture of a swastika pizza after the CEO of official NFL sponsor Papa Johns blamed his company’s recent losses on players kneeling during the national anthem to protest police brutality.
But after the Nazi pizza fiasco, Papa Johns issued a clear message to neo-Nazis and other hate groups, warning them off their products.
Peter Collins, the senior director of public relations at Papa Johns, said in a statement: “We condemn racism in all forms and any and all hate groups that support it.”
“We do not want these individuals or groups to buy our pizza,” he added.
Papa Johns CEO John Schnatter’s comments about the NFL were widely criticized, after he suggested he would be pulling advertising from the league over the police brutality protests.
Defending the pizza CEO, Adrian Sol wrote for The Daily Stormer, which refers to the NFL using racist language: “This might be the first time ever in modern history that a major institution is going to be completely destroyed explicitly because of public outrage over their anti-white agenda.”
Sol also shared a picture of a swastika pizza and mulled: “Papa John: Official pizza of the alt-right?" in comments that prompted the company to insist racists should not buy their pies.
www.newsweek.comWarning : picture of a swastika picture. (Is that illegal in germany?)
It is illegal in the way that you are not allowed to spread swastikas outside of an educational setting. It is not illegal to view one. That especially means that it is not legal to sell anything with swastikas in or on it (except history books and stuff like that)
I don't think it is excessively illegal outside of trying to use swastikas to make people more nazi, in which case it might be Volksverhetzung. But i will be honest, i have never actually investigating what the punishments for doing specific things with swastikas are, since i was never really interested in doing anything with a swastika.
But just viewing stuff with a swastika on it on the internet is not illegal.
|
This stupid free speech stuff... Americans should be able to understand german so they could understand politicial cabaret (political comedy) in german. Its way harsher and way more direct than anything your latenighthosts ever do... Its just not as "plump" because its not on everyday.
edit: they most likely also exist in the us but haven't found youtube yet, in germany its on national (funded) TV.
|
On November 07 2017 04:43 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2017 03:47 Nyxisto wrote:On November 07 2017 02:38 IgnE wrote:On November 06 2017 23:37 KwarK wrote:On November 06 2017 22:06 xDaunt wrote:On November 06 2017 15:06 IgnE wrote:On November 06 2017 13:45 xDaunt wrote:On November 06 2017 13:29 Danglars wrote:On November 06 2017 13:07 xDaunt wrote:
Jesus, Igne. I have my work cut out for me. This may take a day or two. Lawyer first I’m happy to acknowledge underlying tensions in conservatism in principle. A lot of what makes conservatism conservatism is not ideological, but a set of mixed civilizational virtues in part opposition and part strain with each other. Some of the referenced political formulations I’ve found lacking in the past, but you go for first take since it’s closer to what you do for a living. Well, my initial thought upon reading that post was that the tensions were overstated due to the framing being a bit off, but I think a lot of it depends upon what kind of "conservative" that you're talking about. Igne's post is going to look different depending upon whether you read it through the lens of a libertarian-conservative, a religious right conservative, or a neocon/Bush conservative. The framing depends on my probably inadequate summary of nuanced concepts. If I had more than a couple pages (or a lot more time) to make my points it would probably cohere better. But it's also a first attempt at trying to recontextualize this debate over "Western Culture" and trying to point out why I think conservatives are the ones missing the forest for the trees. It's looking different depending on the type of conservative lens is really a product of your initial formulation of "individual liberty, inalienable rights, …" I think the American Right, as a whole, is aligned in practice, if not theory, with what might loosely be identified as "neoliberal" economic principles (even if at this point the word has kind of devolved into a buzzwordy jargon word). I think those economic principles are actually what unites the various factions on the Right, more than any single commitment to roll back abortion, stop immigration, or any other social policy. I don't think that you're wrong here. In fact, I would broaden the link the from "economic freedom" to "individual freedom." And more to the point, I think that this emphasis upon individual freedom (nice job distilling its philosophical etiology, btw) is the root of the American Right's struggle to effectively respond coherently to the culture wars of the past few generations. Traditional American conservatism lacks the framework and vocabulary to deal with such issues. As any libertarian will tell you, America First tariffs, border controls, repatriating wealth, and nationalistic rivalry is antithetical to individual freedom. Borders are an artificial imposition on the natural free movement of peoples, tariffs are theft from the consumer and a bureaucratic distortion of the free market, wealth must be allowed to flow to where it is deemed to have the greatest utility, and nationalism seeks to achieve what is best for the nation, which is an artificial construct, rather than allowing individuals to choose what is best for them. The Republicans have left freedom a long way behind them. well without borders there is no Law either nomos comes from nemein -- to distribute, to possess, or to dwell the border in the ancient greek town was literally the wall which collected the town and set it apart as a political community. "town" has similar etymological roots to Zaun -- fence, border -- separating the juridical order of civilization from nature but maybe that was your point that's a rather bleak view that equates law with the dictate of some philosopher king over the polis. Were you just elaborating or defending this? no it doesn't. there weren't any actual philosopher kings in any ancient Greek polises. but to be a member of the body politic and to be under the force of Law you had to have property within the city boundary. slaves, wives, and children residing in the household were subject to the prepolitical despotic power of the head of the household. they were not strictly bound by Law because they didn't participate in the political sphere maybe you just want to draw a boundary around the whole earth. eliminate or banish Nature entirely
I think it's really misguided to think of political life as a zero sum game that gets more difficult the more you move away from some imagined geographical centre were civilisation is and everywhere around it are the wastelands. Not only is this incredibly myopic and disregards the individual (the wifes, non property owners) and so forth, it will also cede political power to say economic forces who are not really concerned or hampered by borders or what is 'natural'.
I think you can only try to develop a political model that is not reliant on these very limited frameworks or you can simply watch it being displaced. But the enlightened polis isn't coming back for sure.
|
I think it is fairly obvious that the border in "Borders are an artificial imposition on the natural free movement of peoples" that Kwark is refering to is the national boundary of USA. I am not sure why you are refering to the city states of ancient Greece, unless you are arguing that only those living in and owning property in cities in USA, should have the right to vote.
|
|
|
|
|
On November 07 2017 06:50 Gahlo wrote:What did the Gov say?
Yeah, I'm missing the context to this tweet.
The Texas AG commented about how the church goers should've been able to carry firearms so they could shoot back at the gunman. I haven't read anything about the governor's statement about the shooting.
|
The gunman alleged to have killed 26 people at a small church in Texas was previously sentenced to 12 months in prison for abusing his wife and breaking the skull of his infant stepson.
According to the Air Force, while Devin Kelley was stationed at the Holloman Air Force Base in New Mexico in 2012, the man who would one day terrorize Sutherland Springs was charged with “assault on his spouse and assault on their child.”
Retired Colonel Don Christensen, who was the lead Air Force prosecutor during the case, said:
[Kelley] assaulted his stepson severely enough that he fractured his skull, and he also assaulted his wife. He pled to intentionally doing it.
The alleged shooter’s first wife, Tessa K. Kelley, is now reportedly, “very upset,” according to her mother, who spoke with NBC News. Tessa divorced Kelley after the domestic violence incident–which occurred at the Holloman Air Force Base–in 2012.
Despite the guilty plea, Kelley was only given a 12-month prison sentence along with being demoted two ranks to E-1 or Airman Basic–the lowest ranking in the the U.S. Air Force.
After his prison stint, Kelley was kicked out of the military with a “bad conduct” discharge–which is similar to a dishonorable discharge in that a bad conduct sentence is also punitive, but is just a notch below the military’s more well-known dishonorable discharge sentence.
Federal and Texas law prohibit persons convicted of domestic violence from owning a firearm. As of now, it’s still unclear how Kelley was able to procure the weapon allegedly used in the First Baptist Church massacre over the weekend.
lawnewz.com
|
I still refuse to believe that anyone is stupid enough to think that the problem to gun violence is more guns. I give all those people the benefit of the doubt and assume they are hypocritical.
|
On November 07 2017 05:24 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2017 04:43 IgnE wrote:On November 07 2017 03:47 Nyxisto wrote:On November 07 2017 02:38 IgnE wrote:On November 06 2017 23:37 KwarK wrote:On November 06 2017 22:06 xDaunt wrote:On November 06 2017 15:06 IgnE wrote:On November 06 2017 13:45 xDaunt wrote:On November 06 2017 13:29 Danglars wrote:On November 06 2017 13:07 xDaunt wrote:
Jesus, Igne. I have my work cut out for me. This may take a day or two. Lawyer first I’m happy to acknowledge underlying tensions in conservatism in principle. A lot of what makes conservatism conservatism is not ideological, but a set of mixed civilizational virtues in part opposition and part strain with each other. Some of the referenced political formulations I’ve found lacking in the past, but you go for first take since it’s closer to what you do for a living. Well, my initial thought upon reading that post was that the tensions were overstated due to the framing being a bit off, but I think a lot of it depends upon what kind of "conservative" that you're talking about. Igne's post is going to look different depending upon whether you read it through the lens of a libertarian-conservative, a religious right conservative, or a neocon/Bush conservative. The framing depends on my probably inadequate summary of nuanced concepts. If I had more than a couple pages (or a lot more time) to make my points it would probably cohere better. But it's also a first attempt at trying to recontextualize this debate over "Western Culture" and trying to point out why I think conservatives are the ones missing the forest for the trees. It's looking different depending on the type of conservative lens is really a product of your initial formulation of "individual liberty, inalienable rights, …" I think the American Right, as a whole, is aligned in practice, if not theory, with what might loosely be identified as "neoliberal" economic principles (even if at this point the word has kind of devolved into a buzzwordy jargon word). I think those economic principles are actually what unites the various factions on the Right, more than any single commitment to roll back abortion, stop immigration, or any other social policy. I don't think that you're wrong here. In fact, I would broaden the link the from "economic freedom" to "individual freedom." And more to the point, I think that this emphasis upon individual freedom (nice job distilling its philosophical etiology, btw) is the root of the American Right's struggle to effectively respond coherently to the culture wars of the past few generations. Traditional American conservatism lacks the framework and vocabulary to deal with such issues. As any libertarian will tell you, America First tariffs, border controls, repatriating wealth, and nationalistic rivalry is antithetical to individual freedom. Borders are an artificial imposition on the natural free movement of peoples, tariffs are theft from the consumer and a bureaucratic distortion of the free market, wealth must be allowed to flow to where it is deemed to have the greatest utility, and nationalism seeks to achieve what is best for the nation, which is an artificial construct, rather than allowing individuals to choose what is best for them. The Republicans have left freedom a long way behind them. well without borders there is no Law either nomos comes from nemein -- to distribute, to possess, or to dwell the border in the ancient greek town was literally the wall which collected the town and set it apart as a political community. "town" has similar etymological roots to Zaun -- fence, border -- separating the juridical order of civilization from nature but maybe that was your point that's a rather bleak view that equates law with the dictate of some philosopher king over the polis. Were you just elaborating or defending this? no it doesn't. there weren't any actual philosopher kings in any ancient Greek polises. but to be a member of the body politic and to be under the force of Law you had to have property within the city boundary. slaves, wives, and children residing in the household were subject to the prepolitical despotic power of the head of the household. they were not strictly bound by Law because they didn't participate in the political sphere maybe you just want to draw a boundary around the whole earth. eliminate or banish Nature entirely I think it's really misguided to think of political life as a zero sum game that gets more difficult the more you move away from some imagined geographical centre were civilisation is and everywhere around it are the wastelands. Not only is this incredibly myopic and disregards the individual (the wifes, non property owners) and so forth, it will also cede political power to say economic forces who are not really concerned or hampered by borders or what is 'natural'. I think you can only try to develop a political model that is not reliant on these very limited frameworks or you can simply watch it being displaced. But the enlightened polis isn't coming back for sure.
i dont see how what we've been talking about (or at least what i think we've been talking about) has anything to do with a "zero sum game." i'm not sure what you even mean by that. as for how it relates to the "difficulty" of said "game" as you "move away from some imagined geographic centre" i am even more at a loss.
i think you are conflating "politics" and "political life" as used in this instance with any application of force between persons. its hard to make sense of your point about "economic forces" in the context of this discussion because "economic forces" here are prepolitical forces relating to the maintenance of private life of the citizen through private exploitation of his household. being free from economic coercion in that sense was a prerequisite in the polis for any participation in the properly political sphere. my big post responding to xdaunt began with a discussion of what Benjamin meant when he was talking about the aestheticization of politics, or the depoliticization of what people call politics.
what does economics and/or naked violence have to do with the rule of Law, something which itself always presupposes a body politic?
i would further contest your redescription of Nature as "wastelands." i don't think the connotation there is a useful or accurate descriptor of the relationship between society and nature at any point in time (except maybe now where antarctica and the deep oceans are the only major areas of the globe not subject to police-backed sovereign jurisdiction and may be fairly described as "wastelands" i guess)
|
The shooter was a huge piece of shit, but nothing on the paradise papers. Fun...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
