|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On November 14 2020 13:46 WarSame wrote:
That's why I'm slowly moving towards that GH mentality of "fuck the establishment" whether they're Democrats or Republicans. If they are not willing to provide structural changes to the political system at their own expense for the benefit of the country then they aren't worth anything. They're screwing the country over to benefit themselves.
Yeah, thats been my trajectory as well. Its important to use electoralism as best we can, but we also cant rely on it for anything and shouldn't pretend to.
|
The big question though, is how do you, as an American citizen, hope to enact change to upset this system, without feeding into the continuation of it? What tools does the average American citizen have available to them?
|
On November 14 2020 10:31 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2020 09:51 Sent. wrote:On November 14 2020 09:17 farvacola wrote:On November 14 2020 08:59 Sent. wrote:On November 14 2020 08:49 Nevuk wrote:On November 14 2020 08:39 Wegandi wrote:On November 14 2020 08:24 KwarK wrote:On November 14 2020 08:17 Wegandi wrote:On November 14 2020 08:01 WarSame wrote:
The good news (for Canada) is that we have an extremely promising opportunity to get tons of really highly skilled immigrants. Every cloud has a silver lining.
Though I agree with you Wegandi, I fear governments getting too much power. I think in general you should be fairly libertarian(left or right) but during emergencies(wars, pandemics, droughts) you should be willing to become more centralized and authoritarian for pragmatic reasons. The issue is that it's hard to unroll the authoritarianism. I would love to see a President come in and work on lowering their powers, devolving them back to Congress, remove the power from EOs, etc.
I can buy in with you on the centralization of power and the personal liberty part of libertarianism. I just can't buy the raw market approach libertarians seem to believe must happen. Voucher schools could be very useful, but libertarians seem to be so against things like UBI for principle reasons when that just shouldn't be the case. The problem with UBI just like with Georgism is in practice - they're meant to get rid of the welfare bureaucracy and reduce overall welfare spending (and in the case of Georgism significantly reduce taxation burden), but that never happens. What happens is it just adds to the existing structure and piles on more redistribution and disincentive for productive work. Plus how can you disentangle the idea of a centralized powerful State and then give it enormous economic power? The USSR would have been no less authoritarian if it kept the Gosplan, but had high marks for civil liberties. They kind of go together in practice, never mind the logical and moral implications where our liberties originate from - from self-propriety/ownership. From there you get Lockean homesteading, contracts, notion of what is just or unjust concerning trade and property, etc. There's no logic to the folks who are for civil rights, but want centralized State authority over your entire sphere of life (and yes, economics is that - it is our time, our labor, our dreams and bodily action). You say I can't trade because I don't have a permit - that's an imposition on my body, or you take 60% of my income (basically 60% of my time and thus of my working life that has been stolen from me). Your rate of pay within a society doesn’t represent your productivity in a vacuum. Losing 60% of that number doesn’t mean losing 60% of your intrinsic worth. The number is a product of the system in which taxes are taken out. Without the taxes the number would be different. My number is surprisingly high but I wouldn’t claim that I was worth that in a vacuum. It is only in this narrow time period of stability, centralized military spending, arbitrary labor restrictions, and spreadsheets that I come into my own. Viewing your payrate as your value in a vacuum is naive beyond belief. Only a child could believe such an absurdity. The government isn’t taking 60% of the mushrooms I forage or the firewood I collect, it’s taking 60% of a number of imaginary paper that is completely divorced from any rational measure of labour or productivity. Who is talking about productivity and intrinsic worth (something that doesn't exist by the way - didn't you have to take economics with accounting? Jevons, Walras, Menger, you know, subjective theory of value)? Your 2nd paragraph is a huge strawman and is really a non-sequitur to my point. View it in time then - you work an 8 hour day and they take 60% of that time (your pay). Really, I am just using any arbitrary #. Tax and liberty are antithetical. It's why there was no income tax in the US until 1913 and the Government mostly funded itself through use-fee's and tariffs (all things considered - considerably less authoritarian than property and income taxes). Yes, we all dream of those halcyon days of 1912, when women couldn't vote, child labor was legal, the Irish were persecuted, a husband raping his wife was legal, wife beating was legal, phrenology was treated as a real science, workers were regularly bombed by their employers or the government, the triangle shirtwaist fire could occur, and the most common method of lights at night was whale oil. You know, those days of real freedom. Why are you listing completely unrelated things in reply to a statement about taxation? Everything Nevuk said is directly responsive to Wegandi’s pointing to the historical moment of the passage of the federal income tax, sterilized, one dimensional historical references are libertarian bread and butter after all What's the point of countering those references with unrelated historical facts? It's like saying abortion is bad because nazis and communists made it legal. Why not just say the government gained a lot of new responsibilities since 1912 and the income tax is a fair way to pay for those? Because Wegandi's argument is that income tax inherently reduces freedom. I just find that to fly in the face of all logic, considering freedoms in 1912 when no income tax existed were massively curtailed compared to now for all except a very narrow class of wealthy males. (The whale oil was a little irrelevant, I guess?).
It is wrong too. US whaling peaked already in the 1850s, and by 1912, Whale Oil had been effectively replaced for lighting purposes.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.livescience.com/amp/why-whaling-nineteeth-century.html
|
I don't really know, "organizing" to be broad but fuck if I know what that REALLY entails, most "organizing" I'm familiar with winds up being protests or electoral in nature like BLM or the DSA.
GH is the one to ask, hes who I consider the authority on that subject in this thread, Im more of an emotional distress poster. 
|
On November 14 2020 13:53 Zambrah wrote:I don't really know, "organizing" to be broad but fuck if I know what that REALLY entails, most "organizing" I'm familiar with winds up being protests or electoral in nature like BLM or the DSA. GH is the one to ask, hes who I consider the authority on that subject in this thread, Im more of an emotional distress poster.
Pretty sure the establishment is scared shitless of maybe a few hundred thousand fringe groupers running around in the city showing tits and waving flags.
Especially considering that all the establishment needs to do is to point out the "philosophy" behind people like GH, and you lost the vast majority of "the average americans" for your cause.
Then what? Force it on the average american?
|
On November 14 2020 13:50 WarSame wrote:
The big question though, is how do you, as an American citizen, hope to enact change to upset this system, without feeding into the continuation of it? What tools does the average American citizen have available to them?
It’s nearly impossible unless you split both parties in half too imo.
|
On November 14 2020 14:00 ShoCkeyy wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2020 13:50 WarSame wrote:
The big question though, is how do you, as an American citizen, hope to enact change to upset this system, without feeding into the continuation of it? What tools does the average American citizen have available to them? It’s nearly impossible unless you split both parties in half too imo.
Well to be honest, that should happen either way. In fact, you should add a few more on top. Around 6, maybe slightly more, is a good number of parties to have.
|
I actually can't tell if that first part is sarcastic, but in the case that its not, of course they're not afraid of protestors, BLM has had some of the most serious protests in a long while and what has really changed? Republicans went Law and Order Violent, and our Democrat president doubled down on increasing funding on the group that is responsible for vicious acts of brutality against the American citizenry. They're PERFECTLY content to wait it out.
If right wingers gave an actual half a shit about using the second amendment against the abuse of the state the gravy seals would've been shooting cops for a while now.
Also, average americans didnt appreciate civil rights much either, theres a reason MLK wrote about the white moderate as a potentially bigger obstacle than the KKK.
People's basic fucking rights do not get pushed to the back burner because it might make the "average american" uncomfortable. If they can't look at any of the innumerable cases of murder and brutality by the police and go, "wow thats awful, we really need to stop that ASAP" and instead go, "gee, thats bad and all, but the protestors have a philosophy I dont like so..." I doubt they ever gave a shit in the first place.
Its why the "but the riots!!" argument to invalidate the protests have been so garbage, its an excuse to continue to not have to care about the plight of black people and police violence in this country.
|
On November 14 2020 14:04 Zambrah wrote:
I actually can't tell if that first part is sarcastic, but in the case that its not, of course they're not afraid of protestors, BLM has had some of the most serious protests in a long while and what has really changed? Republicans went Law and Order Violent, and our Democrat president doubled down on increasing funding on the group that is responsible for vicious acts of brutality against the American citizenry. They're PERFECTLY content to wait it out.
If right wingers gave an actual half a shit about using the second amendment against the abuse of the state the gravy seals would've been shooting cops for a while now.
Also, average americans didnt appreciate civil rights much either, theres a reason MLK wrote about the white moderate as a potentially bigger obstacle than the KKK.
People's basic fucking rights do not get pushed to the back burner because it might make the "average american" uncomfortable. If they can't look at any of the innumerable cases of murder and brutality by the police and go, "wow thats awful, we really need to stop that ASAP" and instead go, "gee, thats bad and all, but the protestors have a philosophy I dont like so..." I doubt they ever gave a shit in the first place.
Its why the "but the riots!!" argument to invalidate the protests have been so garbage, its an excuse to continue to not have to care about the plight of black people and police violence in this country.
Nice straw man.
There's a difference between protesting against getting killed by the police and forcing your political views down the throat of the "average american". Whether or not i agree with the way BLM protests, the reason for their protests is irrefutable. Not that that's what is being discussed here, but, you know.
Apparently it isn't obvious that, if we're talking about "attacking the establishment, class war, changing the system", we're not talking about basic rights for black people.
|
On November 14 2020 13:55 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2020 13:53 Zambrah wrote:I don't really know, "organizing" to be broad but fuck if I know what that REALLY entails, most "organizing" I'm familiar with winds up being protests or electoral in nature like BLM or the DSA. GH is the one to ask, hes who I consider the authority on that subject in this thread, Im more of an emotional distress poster. Pretty sure the establishment is scared shitless of maybe a few hundred thousand fringe groupers running around in the city showing tits and waving flags. Especially considering that all the establishment needs to do is to point out the "philosophy" behind people like GH, and you lost the vast majority of "the average americans" for your cause. Then what? Force it on the average american?
I mean George Floyd protests certainly got their attention.
The establishment doesn't typically know a damn thing about revolutionary socialism and will just make things up regardless of what my philosophy was anyway. The lesson from Florida-Biden was supposed to be to stop falling for the "but your opponents will say" stuff.
As to your last question, while I'm an advocate of Freirean solutions, I'm not a pacifist. As far as I know, every country forces people to do things and most people just fall in line whether they really like it or not without having to be forced beyond the compelling forces of (largely unenforced) law and social norms.
Apparently it isn't obvious that, if we're talking about "attacking the establishment, class war, changing the system", we're not talking about basic rights for black people.
Perhaps you aren't, but they are inseparable to me.
|
What about the rhetoric around BLM from the right wing is different from "theyre forcing their views down our throats!"
BLM is attacking an aspect of the establishment, the state, one of the arms of state sanctioned violence in particular. Just because they're focused to one aspect of it doesn't mean that isnt basically the core of what they're doing.
Can you actually elaborate on what youre talking about, if BLM is completely unrelated than I'm unclear what you're arguing in particular.
|
On November 14 2020 14:16 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2020 13:55 m4ini wrote:On November 14 2020 13:53 Zambrah wrote:I don't really know, "organizing" to be broad but fuck if I know what that REALLY entails, most "organizing" I'm familiar with winds up being protests or electoral in nature like BLM or the DSA. GH is the one to ask, hes who I consider the authority on that subject in this thread, Im more of an emotional distress poster. Pretty sure the establishment is scared shitless of maybe a few hundred thousand fringe groupers running around in the city showing tits and waving flags. Especially considering that all the establishment needs to do is to point out the "philosophy" behind people like GH, and you lost the vast majority of "the average americans" for your cause. Then what? Force it on the average american? I mean George Floyd protests certainly got their attention.
Did it? I don't see much change, do you? To be fair i'm not in the US, so first hand experience is hard to come by, but all i can remember as an outcome is some white retarded kid shooting some people, burning cars, and, well.. Yeah, that's about it. Ah and trumpets running their oversized penis-compensating trucks through crowds.
Did something of actual value come from this?
The establishment doesn't typically know a damn thing about revolutionary socialism and will just make things up regardless of what my philosophy was anyway. The lesson from Florida-Biden was supposed to be to stop falling for the "but your opponents will say" stuff.
Nor does the average american. In fact, i'd argue that the vast majority of americans would not be in line with your philosophy. Which brings us to:
As to your last question, while I'm an advocate of Freirean solutions, I'm not a pacifist. As far as I know, every country forces people to do things and most people just fall in line whether they really like it or not without having to be forced beyond the compelling forces of (largely unenforced) law and social norms.
That would need the majority of the US to fall in line with your philosophy. Oh, and no. Most countries actually have a choice which direction they want to take the country in.
How well that worked for your philosophy can be observed by what Corbyn did to the Labour party. In a considerably more liberal country than the US.
What you're suggesting is that you, and make no mistake here, you're part of a fringe group, have the right to force your political views onto the average american, and they "have to follow". Even though you're not just a minority, you're a fringe group. Good luck getting the hundreds of millions of people on your side, who're violently opposed to anything communism. By design. All someone needs to say is "they want us to be the soviet union". Whether or not that is your intention (i think your intention is actually worse, but that's beside the point), that's what it's going to lead to - again, then what?
|
My personal point was that we should be able to band together to enact change which gives us competitive elections through ranked ballots.
Nothing to do with communism. I mostly was aligning with GH on the lines of disliking the establishment and a revolutionary spirit.
|
Where does GH say hes going to force his political views on anyone?
|
On November 14 2020 14:21 Zambrah wrote:
What about the rhetoric around BLM from the right wing is different from "theyre forcing their views down our throats!"
BLM is attacking an aspect of the establishment, the state, one of the arms of state sanctioned violence in particular. Just because they're focused to one aspect of it doesn't mean that isnt basically the core of what they're doing.
Can you actually elaborate on what youre talking about, if BLM is completely unrelated than I'm unclear what you're arguing in particular.
I mean, it kinda is obvious to me, but sure.
That's why I'm slowly moving towards that GH mentality of "fuck the establishment" whether they're Democrats or Republicans. If they are not willing to provide structural changes to the political system at their own expense for the benefit of the country then they aren't worth anything. They're screwing the country over to benefit themselves.
|
Thats not even a fucking GH quote are you for real, lol
|
On November 14 2020 09:11 Mohdoo wrote:
You are trying too hard to simplify the world into easily digested tidbits. Nothing is nearly as simple as you keep trying to describe. This is a common failing of libertarian thinking. By trying to paint so much of the world in simple black, easily understood bits, you are missing the nuance and complexity that actually makes the world function. A lot of what you are saying are just buzz phrases like "tax and liberty are antithetical", which, again, is extremely lacking in nuance. You shouldn't expect anything you boil down to such simple terms to be a good representation of reality.
TBF this isn't just a Wegandi problem, it's a "political discussion on the internet" problem. Everyone loves to boil down discussion to simple platitudes and pretend to be experts on things when in fact virtually every aspect of governance is sufficiently complicated that if you aren't working or studying in at least an adjacent field for a living, you probably don't have sufficient knowledge or experience to have a meaningful opinion about it. We don't live in a the 18th/19th centuries anymore where a bunch of rich white people could be philosophers and political scientists in their free time. The world is way more complicated than that now.
COVID's probably made this the most obvious out of anything in the past year where there's suddenly a whole bunch of armchair public health experts on the internet who think they know what is and isn't good public health policy despite having zero relevant experience. Sorry to use you as an example here Wegandi, but if you don't live in Denmark, don't have any meaningful background in public health, and have never seen a mink in real life, how are you in any way informed to decide whether putting down a bunch of mink farms is or isn't good public health policy?
|
On November 14 2020 14:25 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2020 14:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 14 2020 13:55 m4ini wrote:On November 14 2020 13:53 Zambrah wrote:I don't really know, "organizing" to be broad but fuck if I know what that REALLY entails, most "organizing" I'm familiar with winds up being protests or electoral in nature like BLM or the DSA. GH is the one to ask, hes who I consider the authority on that subject in this thread, Im more of an emotional distress poster. Pretty sure the establishment is scared shitless of maybe a few hundred thousand fringe groupers running around in the city showing tits and waving flags. Especially considering that all the establishment needs to do is to point out the "philosophy" behind people like GH, and you lost the vast majority of "the average americans" for your cause. Then what? Force it on the average american? I mean George Floyd protests certainly got their attention. Did it? I don't see much change, do you? To be fair i'm not in the US, so first hand experience is hard to come by, but all i can remember as an outcome is some white retarded kid shooting some people, burning cars, and, well.. Yeah, that's about it. Ah and trumpets running their oversized penis-compensating trucks through crowds. Did something of actual value come from this?
At least in terms of popular opinion, the Floyd protests certainly seem to have made a significant difference in the US. Even a lot of people who don't like BLM are at this point coming around to at least the idea that the police organization is broken.
That primarily seems to manifest in local changes, but elections like state sheriff rarely make national news (only Arpaio in AZ, really).
|
Republicans have their 50 Senators, so crossover Democratic Senators like Joe Manchin and Kirsten Sinema are going to be much more important to the Biden agenda. I know if was mentioned in passing about Manchin's relative moderation when compared to his party. He was on Special Report Monday and committed to not voting against ending the filibuster and packing the Supreme Court.
"This system, the Senate, this so unique body in the world. It was made to work together in a bipartisan way," Manchin explained. "And once you start breaking down those barriers, then you lose every reason that we are the institution that we are, the most deliberate body. So I want to lay those fears to rest that that won't happen because I will not be the 50th Democrat voting to end that filibuster or to basically stack the court."
Manchin reiterated his message on Twitter, attacking progressive ideas including the "defund the police" movement.
"Defund the police? Defund, my butt," the senator wrote Wednesday evening. "I'm a proud West Virginia Democrat. We are the party of working men and women. We want to protect Americans' jobs & healthcare. We do not have some crazy socialist agenda, and we do not believe in defunding the police."
AOC's response speaks for itself.
(It gets slightly harder for establishment democrats. Republicans flipped several seats in the House. With current projections, Pelosi can't really lose the AOC squad + allies and comfortably pass things through the House. She needs their votes much much more now than previously)
|
On November 14 2020 13:50 WarSame wrote:
The big question though, is how do you, as an American citizen, hope to enact change to upset this system, without feeding into the continuation of it? What tools does the average American citizen have available to them?
next to impossible. you need a referendum and the chances of that happening are next to 0.
the very foundation needs to be destroyed and built from the ground up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
