Capitalism and the Natural Order is under Assault by Society’s Worst Elements

What I mean is you're a lame-O. One of the issues popping up with today's democratic societies is that the plebes have too much of a voice - Hipsters working at Starbucks Boldly tossing around the ideas of Karl Marx (the ultimate basement dweller, read his biography) and the like.

Not that I'm complaining - I'm very grateful to live in the modern era and in current society. But I'm not going to pretend your lazy couch-sitting ass intellectualism-without-any-experience (if it's even that) has any merit.

 

Why do you believe there are Mexican construction workers who are willing to do jobs that white Americans would never do? You realize this is actually a fantasy, and that long before the Mexican “rebrowning of America” started about 50 years ago, we had white construction workers doing all sorts of tough jobs? Most of the infracstructure that we have in this country was built before the 1965 immigration bill changed our demographics.

The reason why jobs like Construction, roofing, drywalling, carpentry, masonry, and other jobs like these are dominated by Hispanics now is because they have put amazing amounts of downward pressure on wages and are willing to work for less.

 

I didn't say "Mexican construction workers willing to do jobs that white Americans would never do" - I was speaking of you as an individual, your opinion. This isn't an appeal to a collectivist mindset - which (bless your heart) you are often appealing to even though you don't seem to be aware of this.

I did say, to you as an individual, that anecdotally I've met respectable Mexicans who work construction jobs I personally wouldn't be willing to do unless I absolutely had to. So to focus on you as an individual (not the collective White People):

"you don't really harbor contempt for the local Mexican construction worker who *probably* does something for a living that you would never be willing to do, do you?"

Not trying to change your opinions just playing around here.

edit: And yes, the Leftist tactic of pouring uneducated immigrants over our borders to garner votes is despicable. And yes, I strongly feel we're not playing by the same rules as these collectivists, and it's a problem.

 

I see both sides of the political fence wanting more control. Seems to me the right wants to cede some of that control to private corporate entities while the left wants that control uber alles to reside within democratic institutions.

I get the whole good vs evil thing as the justification for whatever side of an issue. It creates a position of "emotional appeal" that at times shuts down rational analysis or any need to reconsider.

Sorry your thought experiment is a false equivalency. Peoples attitudes and emotional responses towards god vs racism are (or at least should be) WAY different.

I bet if you went to some places in the US stood on a street corner and screamed about white supremacy you'd have people buying you beers. Do it in the ghetto and you got Die Hard 2.

I am gobsmacked at that analysis. Trump, the first twit of twitter, is far less controversial than Obama?

No, I do not believe the bumperstickers are used to describe specific political platforms, as the vast majority of users have no friggin clue what those specifics are.

I believe "popular" usage driven by the need to generalize in order to characterize one's opposition has distorted the meaning of the terms. Imagine calling somebody a "leftist" and atttibuting all kinds of political beliefs AND human motivations to the entire left of center ideological spectrum. For instance, I'm a liberal socialist, but I friggin hate commies and am not too keen on socialists either.

 

There are folks who cling tenaciously to one ideological dogma or another and proselytize relentlessly to promote it.

Meanwhile pragmatists embrace what works.

The most advanced nations on earth all succeed under a sensible blend of capitalism and socialism, thriving economically under democratic systems that address the practical needs of everyone in that society. E.g., all the first-world industrialized nations achieve universal health care coverage at far lower cost than less advanced That's the empirical reality, regardless of what ideologues and those with vested interests try to claim.

Eschew the airy-fairy ideological claptrap, and follow the proven paradigms.

 

The right wants more individual control generally, self-reliance. The left wants more centralized control and power. It used to be that the right used religion disingenuously to empower and grow state control, now the left does far more of that, just via a different kind of religion. I am unaware of any forces within the mainstream right wanting more corporate control, just for society to rely more on voluntary, localized transactions than central.

It's not a false equivalency. Hundreds of current datapoints demonstrate that in today's U.S., the right is far more tolerant of free speech than the left. I can't believe you would seriously debate that. Why would people's responses towards god v racism be WAY different? But the specifics don't matter, go shout "I love Trump" on any street corner, then go across town and shout "I hate Trump." And it won't matter whether you are in a pro Trump area, you will likely draw violent or near violent response doing the former, not the latter.

I don't recall any Obama supporters being assaulted, kicked out of restaurants, harassed at work, etc. None. Yet this is becoming the LW MO more and more. Resorting to violence and force is a form of control with moral undertones. If someone is willing to assault you, they will happily take your rights given the chance.

Don't bother the feeble claim that "Well Trump is different." The LW has engaged in this behavior my whole life, wouldn't matter if it were Cruz or Rand Paul in the WH. They did it to Reagan, both Bushes, and the RW simply does not do that to near the same degree in U.S. political discourse. If there is a good-evil based "priestly mentality" in the U.S., it is ironically the LW who are the most vociferous, violent priests. It's been this way for decades, the difference is that everyone today has a video camera in their hands to document that which MSM was complicit in concealing in the past.

It's a historical fact. Trump's Admin so far has been a fairly standard GOP administration. Far less "controversial" in ACTUAL POLICY and other material factors than for example the Kennedy Administration. Kennedy presided over massive tax cuts and threatened to disband the CIA outright (was that "treason?" of course not), had extreme, concealed health issues while in office that required constant, mood altering pain medication, presided over real, globally embarrassing scandals such as the Bay of Pigs and the resulting Missile Crisis, turned the WH into a brothel... yet got kid gloves for the most part and through to the present.

Cut through all the BS and partisan rhetoric for a minute and list out -material- facts of the Trump Admin policy, not fluff from media, noise and hyperbole. Trump cut taxes, Trump beefed up immigration enforcement, Trump has cut some regulations,Trump has appointed a SCOTUS justice (the average POTUS gets three appointments... Obama got 3), Trump has reversed many Obama Admin EOs (which the next Democrat will do to Trump's EOs most assuredly)... most of the rest is just noise created by a terrified gov-edu-union-contractor-grantee-trial lawyer-MSM Complex. Well guess what? That's a pretty "by the book" GOP Administration, not some "nation threatening" fabrication.

 

why am I not surprised you'd revert to projection?

 

And what I mean is you are full of bullshit bumpersticker rrrwff propaganda.

And the other side of that coin is that the radical racist right wing fascist fringe have too much of voice. RAcist nazi scum boldly tossing around ideas of Hiltler (he lives in the sub sub sub basement of Marx's basement - read his biography) and other low life racists.

I am glad that you are as grateful to live in this era as I. But I'm not going to pretend your scumbag racist fascists "ideology-without-any-experience" has any merit at all.

 

So the left is no longer includes classic liberalism? It no longer includes social democracts?

As for mainstream right wanting more corporate control, that is exactly what they want. More corporate control and less government control. It also includes investing corporations with the rights of individual citizens while limiting their liablity for the inevitable abuse and bad behaviors associated with profit chasing.


[quoteIt's not a false equivalency. Hundreds of current datapoints demonstrate that in today's U.S., the right is far more tolerant of free speech than the left. I can't believe you would seriously debate that. Why would people's responses towards god v racism be WAY different? But the specifics don't matter, go shout "I love Trump" on any street corner, then go across town and shout "I hate Trump." And it won't matter whether you are in a pro Trump area, you will likely draw violent or near violent response doing the former, not the latter. [/quote]

Yes its a false equivalency. IOW it is not a valid argument.

I do agree that the russians were very successful in creating stronger emotionally driven social/political divisions than in the past.
You want to blame the effects of the weaponization of social media on merely partisan politics and the "left" in particular.

Funny, I see all those trump rallies and the hate and vitriol of some of the attendees towards "liberals", Democrats, immigrants, gays, and the media.

Yes and assaulting the intelligence of the population with a constant barrage of lies and bullshit (you know with the difference) is just as much an assault as denying somebody service, which as you also know is just as common among the right, although they do have a tendency to wrap themselves in false piety.

Feeble claim? Man pass that over here will ya?

Obama cut taxes. Obama beefed up border security, Obama cut some regulations, Obama appointed a SCOTUS.

Perhaps your perspective is heavily colored by your confirmation bias, because it sure does ignore facts.

I don't recall ANY GOP administration kissing russian and north korean butt. I don't recall ANY GOP administration smearing the american justice system, individual dedicated career civil servants, private citizens and corporations. I don't recall any GOP president trashing every ethical rule associated with the Presidency. I don't recall any GOP president hiring their children. I don't recall any GOP president trash NATO or declare Canada a national security threat. I don't recall any GOP president who had to get rid of so many high level members for egregious ethics violations despite his draining the swamp and hiring all the best people.

You do not present a compelling argument. I suggest we simply agree to disagree.

 

Do you really think people are so gullible as to believe that? What percentage of humanity lives away from society, isolated, and practicing self-sufficiency? Now tell me what percentage of humanity lives in society taking advantage of cooperation and social advantage, not to mention fellowship. So exactly how is socialism "directly against our nature"? (This should be good.)

I can only call that some sort of hallucination.

More fantasy based on trusting that the reader will generalize a minority trait.

But fortunately, this current swing to the extreme right will prove to be the downfall of the right in the end. In time, it will bring about a very strong wing back to the left and the people will finally get relief from the raping and pillaging of the public for the profit of the rich. You folks on the right do nothing to rein in these excesses, so the people will deal with it. And that you call "left". But it sure will be progress.

 

Riiiiiight, and so Trump, who is far right, isn't trying to undermine, criticize, weaken, and dominate the DOJ and fire anyone who disagrees with him in any kind of a wish for more power for himself, eh? "Self-reliance"? Are you kidding? The right has abandoned their own critical thinking and balanced judgement in lieu of total loyalty in lock step with Dear Leader. Even the Republican Congress won't act independently or confront Trump on anything. "Individual control"?? "Self-reliance"??

 

LoL!!!
I read all last night and now I have a headache.

 

Capitalists are pro free market when they want to enter a new market
But anti free market when they want to defend their market share

Capitalists largely oppose government interventions in markets
Except when they want the government to enforce patent law

 

Thanks guys. I been kicking Right-Wing butt so much that I walk with a limp now. Notice they don't really acknowledge any counter-arguments, that just repeat ad infinitum. It is what I call the Troll Rodeo Clown Tag Team. Their goal is to filibuster your time so other issues are not discussed.

My experience is that discussion boards that do not have a antithetical group die out of boredom. Also, countering such groups improves our own arguments otherwise you will forget our own thesis statements and supporting evidence. So in the long run we benefit in both of these ways from their presence--up to a point, that is.

The ignore feature is the best feature on this board--it's really a troll killer and I use it often! Once ignored, never restore--Hey, that rhymes!

 

Yeah they keep us sharp.

 

I am not an attorney, but here is some great legal advice here.

 

I rarely use ignore. My personal philosophy encompasses giving back to the subjects of my bigotries the same animus they display to the subjects of theirs but use facts instead of bumpersticker bullshit. Of course I like to believe I do it with much greater concision of derision and infinitely greater wit.

 

And you do Jonsa with grace.

 

Capitalists are also very keen on government enforcement of copyrights, trade marks, and intellectual property rights and tariffs. Capitalists tend to support extending ever longer and more stringent application of these rights. I think it is entirely fair to say that capitalists do not give a **** about free trade except in so far as it increases their profits.

One example of this sort of double standard is the farmers. I have many farmer relatives. Boy oh boy they are rip roaring conservatives. But you sure as heck better not suggest cutting price supports in the farm bill... and laws supporting ethanol fuel are sacrosanct.

Conservative economics is mostly lipstick used to dress up greed.

Not that greed is inherently bad. But it seldom so wonderfully idealistic as conservatives pretend it to be

 

The left hasn't included "classical liberals" for 50 years since it gave us the Great Society, the welfare state and Medicare. It left them there and paved the way for the Reagan years. Leftists used to rail against big government, and they were right. They were replaced by "fiat capitalists," the entrenched, gigantic, permanent bureaucratic class, the educational bureaucracy, public unions, government contractors, government grantees and big media/entertainment that relies on redistribution for profit, all of whom want all the perqs of capitalism for themselves... paid for by others... with as little real work as possible. The formation of the Libertarian Party in the 70s was a milestone exit of classical liberals from the left. Now, we do have an insincere class of mostly marijuana legalization statists who want more and more government... and marijuana legalization... who call themselves "libertarians." Some on this forum. They are neither classical liberals nor libertarians. I don't know what a "social democrat" is.

There is no such thing as "control" in voluntary transactions unless someone -has- to have something to function in society, and that is almost never the case. You pays your money and you gets your cellphone service... or you don't. That's not "control," but healthy, voluntary commerce. Perhaps the greatest trick and biggest challenge the gov-edu-union-contractor-grantee-trial lawyer-MSM Complex has is convincing others that involuntary fiat transactions (that surprise surprise, enrich the Complex) are superior to voluntary transactions. This is where all the lie narratives on wealth resentment, business resentment, capitalism resentment come from, and their hegemony in schools and media allow them to spew these lie narratives nonstop hundreds of times a day. Did they fool you?

You aren't going to address the fact that only .002% of the country's 30,000,000 business firms are large public companies, are you? You guys never do. You aren't going to deal with the legally accurate claim that 99% of the companies in the country are engaged in no wrongdoing whatsoever, are you? You guys never do. Instead you parrot endless half-truths and abstractions about "the rich," focus only on outlier corporate wrongdoers, and absolute gibberish such as the above, "investing corporations with the rights of individual citizens?" What does that even -mean-? I'm a business lawyer, I represent small companies other than in litigation, the occasional mid sized one, and can assure you the only "rights" being invested away from individuals are the rights of people to form small businesses without excessive, Complex-enriching, large-corporate crony entrenching, bought and paid for hyperregulations.

If you are talking about the fact that corporations are considered fictitious persons under the law, that is true. They are. I will tell you right now as someone who knows the following with absolute certainty... look around you for a second, at all the little quality of life enriching things you enjoy. May be a television, a car, your internet service, a refrigerator, a particular wine or beer, fresh fruit or a good steak, social media, a music collection, even the comfortable mattress you sleep on and the air conditioning or fan that cools your home... the very electricity that powers your house, and your house/home itself. Take away the limited liability and fictional personhood of business entities? GONE, all of it INSTANTANEOUSLY GONE in the blink of an eye. Want to know what it feels like to live in a cave in Afghanistan? Take away the limited liability and fictitious personhood of business entities, we'll all find out real quick. Don't understand this indisputable fact? Start a thread on the benefits of sophisticated finance and stable corporate law that first enriched the West, then the entire civilized world. I'll be glad to illuminate the discussion.

So you are going to ignore the fact that -mainstream- leftists are out in the street assaulting people, rioting, destroying property, bullying and intimidating others, shouting down and blocking venues, harshly alienating their friends and family... over politics in a stable country with an increasingly healthy economy and low unemployment, no war, no draft, just "we hate Trump and can't accept our side lost an election." You are going to ignore that nonleftists of what ever persuasion don't do this, or don't do it to 1% the extent that leftists do? OK then.

So you are a dupe of the Russians, they influenced your political beliefs and actions. Sorry bout that. They sure didn't influence me or anyone I know. The only rage or divisions "caused by" the Russians within the nonleft is that the hoax of "muhrussia" is preventing necessary process of justice against bad actors in one of the country's two political parties and their complicit, entrenched bureaucracy.

For 50 years, the left called anti-Russians in this country "a Red Scare hoax," "McCarthyites," "Crazy Birchers," pounded that narrative out near weekly in the news, films, TV, ... and during a time when, as post Cold War documents prove, bad actions of Russians in the U.S. were very real and pervasive. Now that they don't have the collectivist resources to mount -material- espionage in the country any more, when it's politically expedient, time to turn that narrative on its head. Time to turn trolls and hackers into a "Constitutional Crisis!" to hide the crimes and bad actions of your side and stall accountability for them. The worm has hilariously turned, and the hypocrisy of your side with respect to this "Red Scare" is palpable. No one other than 10% of the country buys into it at all.

Talk about false equivalence. Trump is the first vocally pro gay President, he waved the flag at a rally, has been pro gay for his entire celebrity career. Nice try and repetitive fail at calling "illegal aliens" immigrants. No one of the mainstream nonleft has any animus against legal immigrants at all. And wanting illegals deported is not "hate." Get honest. I had never seen a Trump rally, could have cared less about them, until all the claims of hatred, racism, bladebla started pouring forth, so I watched one. Nothing of the sort of what you describe takes place at them. And once I watched some of them, like millions of other Americans who don't like to be lied to, I decided to vote more against the river of lies pouring from the left than specifically for Trump. Thanks to your side for that!

In the depths of the worst recession since the Great Depression, cloaked by one huge, disastrous lie after another, Obama oversaw passage of the most controversial legislation since the 60s, ACA, which deepened and extended the recession unnecessarily by laying undue burden on American small business at the worst possible time. I can cite several other ways/scandals that Obama was a far more controversial POTUS than Trump, but don't have to. ACA is enough for now. It was a REAL big deal for many Americans, and divided the country far more than anything Trump has said or done, or will likely do.

You have a problem with distinguishing real issues that average Americans care about, and fake news attacks that they don't, that they see right through. Most of the above, in addition to being exaggerated or outright false, is absurdly slanted also, straight from CNN, NYT, not real.

Nah, just say uncle when the pain gets unbearable. Not done with you yet.

 

Why is it erroneous? You claim this, but then give no argument. The ancients are set up in the OP as the Manichean antipode of "devious" leftist progressives (the latter's highlighting feature is said to be their unnatural hierarchical collectivism). Of course, the ancients Greeks (particularly Plato and Aristotle) were communitarians, who thought individual self-actualization could only occur in the context of the good community. Plato and Aristotle emphasized eudaimonia (well-being) as the nature of the good life over the more vulgar forms of happiness (pleasure, satisfaction of desire), and thought that those who celebrated their own individuality and self-interest over the well-being of the community represented vice not virtue (as well as constituting a fundamental misunderstanding of what it means to be an individual). Accordingly, they argued that political and legal institutions should represent this moral commitment. Interestingly, many progressive political groups are similarly situated in that they propose communal based forms of solidarity meant in part to help foster democratic equality by addressing the struggles of oppressed groups (e.g. those who are exploited, marginalized, colonized, powerless, and subjected to systemic violence) achieve self-actualization (politically, economically, existentially) - and that legal and political institutions ought to reflect this commitment. The modern ethical principles invoked here are different however, in that classical Greek thought is committed to a normative view of the good life rationally and objectively defined, whereas contemporary political thought in late modernity generally eschews such an objective stance in favor of value pluralism. Nonetheless it remains committed to principles of fairness underlying these pluralistic commitments, which are then mediated through procedural means (democratic decision-making). In other words, communitarians and modern progressive liberals share certain ideals (but have differing ethical worldviews) – in particular, a commitment to self-actualization and the understanding of individual flourishing, as well as self-actualization as mediated through the social and political. Hence, to invoke Nietzsche's critique of modernity (myopically limited to progressivism) and imply that it is consistent and/or related to Greek celebrations of moral excellence (again originally constructed in the OP as a moral contrast to progressivism) is problematic.

Concerning Jordan Peterson, the entire post is marinated in Peterson's worldview. I'm surprised there wasn't a "consider the lobster" claim -(actually that would have been kind of awesome - then we could have debated the neurological effects of serotonin on crustaceans vs primates - I've always wanted to do that -it's on my bucket list, oh well, you can't have everything right?). As for invoking logical fallacies - you should. You have a Bachelor's in philosophy right? Might as well get your money's worth.

1. So there’s no exegetical examination here? My mistake -could have sworn that was there. Perhaps you would be so kind as to present your criterion for analysis again? In that way, we can avoid any conceptual confusions. “Talked around a bunch of things – without making things clear?” It would be the height of arrogance, would it not, to claim that you didn’t understand something and then blame me for not understanding. Moreover, you appear to assert many things without justification. By the way, there is much more analysis than what you address here – the selectivity of your claims here is somewhat curious.

2. Actually, the accuracy of your summary is something that has yet to be determined. Why is a brief summary all that is necessary? You again assert without argument. What constitutes informal? Why would the OP comment not warrant an in-depth analysis if there are exegetical problems? This is particularly true if I am pointing out why this is disconcerting, exploring the philosophical commitments that are in play, and finding them inconsistent.

3. Oh. So the defense of the natural order, free markets, and the celebration of Donald Trump taken together doesn’t imply a conservative worldview? Good to know. You claimi that the the concept of conservatism is pure abstraction (does this imply that any attempt to talk of “conservatism” is itself epistemically underdetermined?) but that the concept of progressivism is not? Are you being serious here? Are you suggesting that progressivism is not an abstract concept? – what makes one purely an abstraction? Progressivism is not relational? Not contextual? To quote my avatar: your “concepts have an authoritarian tendency to conceal their own conceptuality.”

Well you can claim this to be true, but if you don’t give reasons for why it’s fair or why it doesn’t make sense, then you’re really not doing anything but foot-stomping.

“In society” – how so? Coercive how? Not wearing masks??? Drive here simply means motivation. The way Nietzsche is invoked here, in regards to progressivism, seems to imply that Nietzsche has some concern with social or political conceptions of power – he’s doesn’t. Just to clarify his position - he couldn’t care less about the sheep being led to the slaughter by the judas goats. They deserve it…for being sheep. What he does care about are the “higher types”, the noble, aesthetic, creative souls – the Goethes, the Beethovens, the Dostoevskys, the creative geniuses who live life by transforming the terrible difficult world into something beautiful and magnificent – not just as an act of aesthetic creation, but as a spiritual, existential, embodied way of life. His concern is that many magisterial souls have internalized slave morality and now believe they should be like everyone else: humble, meek, equal, altruistic, contrite, obedient, submissive, etc. Perhaps above all else – they have guilt for being extraordinary -this is the nihilism of modernity – the highest values (traditional democratic morality) devalues themselves into life-denying values -they undermine meaningful life. Moreover, he wants to humiliate the priestly class by exposing the hypocrisy of their self-righteousness– in other words, they are the very thing they say they hate (as and such they are self-deceptive, weak, and pathetic). The way it seems to be characterized in the OP (at least implicitly) is that a progressive power grab is an act of elitist overreach, which implies some kind of commitment to democratic fairness and equality, some kind of prohibition against aristocracy or hierarchy, all of which would be to be ensconced in slave morality. That’s not Nietzsche. So either 1) you are knowingly applying apples and oranges (the analogy is weak because Nietzsche’s concern about the priestly class and the concern about progressive power breaks down fundamentally due to the significant differences regarding the value systems between the two)– or 2) you think they are the same and have therefore misunderstood Nietzsche. In other words, you either understand Nietzsche’s view here and misapply him logically, or you don’t understand Nietzsche’s view.

The casual nature of the reference is irrelevant. The disagreement obviously revolves around your use of the term coercive, which must be defined. But it also revolves around what Nietzsche sees as radically Other in opposition to modern values. As far as I can see, you haven’t made any interpretive claims in regards to these issues (which would seem to be essential to make your argument). It appears that both left priests and right priests are equally pathologically sick and equally influential (qualitatively speaking) from a Nietzschean perspective. If you are making a quantitative claim about how many creative artistic “higher men” have internalized the nihilistic life-denying attitudes of modern morality and from which side, then it’s hard to see how one could know this. Or even why it would matter philosophically – after all, that would be merely a type of empirical study -i.e. counting.

So where is your account of Aristotle? Convenient to leave out the Nicomachean Ethics no? Boring morality play? Why must it only be a morality play? Can’t it be many things (including a celebration of powerful excellence – additionally, doesn’t Odysseus serve as a sort of moral counter?) Isn’t the Homeric worldview defined by the interplay of both? My claim is that moderation is a necessary condition for understanding the ancient mind, nowhere do I claim that it is sufficient condition. That’s a clear straw-man. Furthermore, the excellences are contextually defined and therefore different for Homeric society and Aristotelian society. In Homer, the virtues are defined in terms of social roles/relations and fulfilling the function of those roles well. In Plato and Aristotle, they are defined by fulfilling the human function of rational action (the function of a human being – theory: intellectual virtues and practice: behavioral virtues). In neither the Homeric or the philosophical, however, is hubris celebrated (power yes, but not hubris). I’m surprised you didn’t invoke the Dionsyian elements in response – but even here, following Nietzsche (The Birth of Tragedy) the Greek tragedians harmonize and balance this with the Apollonian.

Passingly dismissive?? The critique against socialism and Christianity is situated in his decidedly illiberal worldview. They are the same critique. Indeed his treatment of the Mill (as the personification of ignoble British liberalism) is just as savage. As for ethics, it depends on what you mean by the term. I’m not claiming Nietzsche gave his own view some privileged epistemic status for morality – but he clearly has a certain commitment to value -as is evidenced in the eternal return (I mean his middle and later periods are steeped in the problem of false consciousness right?, this concern would be nonsensical without some sense of a positive ethical view - a certain type of virtue ethics), even if he is a metaethical antirealist.

 

Wow, I can copy and paste right from the post. I love this board!!! Oh, I sent you a message. And how the hell does one imbed photos not on the internet?

Interestingly, the word "idiot" comes from the Greek ἰδιώτης, idiōtēs 'a private person, or individual', and idios meaning 'private', 'one's own'. If a Greek citizen did not participate in a vote or other community affairs--he was an idiot.

Your post has totally blown my mind.

And Marcuse further writes...."Moreover, the argument debunks the repressive ideology of freedom, according to which human liberty can blossom forth in a life of toil, poverty, and stupidity."(Ibid., page 43.).

 

Donald Trump, was a lifelong Democrat who finally got fed up with Washington politics enough to run, it's a lie to say he or any of his policies is "far right" an oft repeated lie, but a lie nonetheless. As a matter of irrefutable legal fact, Trump could put a complete halt to the Mueller investigation and institute a REAL not media hoax bloodbath. That is his LEGAL RIGHT. Yet he has not done so, making the rest of the first sentence also a falsehood. Power for himself? He's a multibillionaire with TOTAL power and control over a gigantic business empire, he didn't have to become POTUS and put up with mountains and rivers of lies and half-truths, daily attacks, to have more "power for himself" than the most powerful rulers had in the past. You people act as if he is a street corner bum who won the lottery and is now throwing his weight around. False. Rest of the post is unintelligible gibberish.

 

Oh how devious the social democrat's mind is - it can even trick itself into thinking that it's empowered by the collective spirit!

Do you really think people are so gullible as to believe that? What percentage of humanity lives away from society, isolated, and practicing self-sufficiency? Now tell me what percentage of humanity lives in society taking advantage of cooperation and social advantage, not to mention fellowship. So exactly how is socialism "directly against our nature"? (This should be good.)

Who mentioned anything about humans being isolated/living away from society? That's a big reach, and the it's the only way you can make the 'socialism jives with human nature' argument work. Instead, let's look at the reality:

Humans are tribal - this is deeply ingrained in our psyche and no, you as a Democratic Socialist have not overcome that wiring. But I'll get back to your kind in a minute. The essential prerequisite for 'tribal' is that you know and can relate to the other members of your tribe. On a personal basis. In a country of 300+ million people the "social critters who just want to get along and mutually work together and cooperate" doesn't fly - the concept can't and doesn't scale. Democratic Socialism doesn't solve the issue, it exacerbates it.

Now along comes civilization - where masses of people have to get along and try to find some kind of group identity (nation, religion etc.). For simplicity's sake and so don't take this entirely literally (but it does illustrate the point) people can approach civilization in two general manners, dependent largely on their level of perceived self-empowerment, ability and shall I say, energy:

- The weaker units - those who perceive themselves as less capable of doing well in a society, will naturally gravitate to the Collective (Democratic Socialism is the new cover) and revere the thing you mentioned - cooperation. Much like hamsters when frightened, they curl up into a ball and trick their brains into thinking this For the Greater Good mentality is righteous. Sometimes, like in the present era, these little critters get so wrapped up in these strange thoughts going around in their head that they actually start acting arrogant about their moral views - weak characteristics are strong, strong are actually weak! Hallelujah! We have found the enlightenment! This is the case of modern Progressives whereby the state is worshiped (but of course you can't admit you worship the state, as you would reveal your true form if you did) - but more generally centralization and the Collective are worshipped.

<Rule 2/3/4> have gotten way out of line - so let's move onto the other end of the array.

- The individualistic units - those who perceive themselves as more capable of doing well in a society and in attaining their goals (whatever those goals may be, oftentimes they don't relate to latent Power) will naturally avoid and abhor the concept of the Collective. Unlike the <Rule 2/3/4> described above, these people are courageous and take on the fabled self-responsibility so core to classical (not modern) liberalism. Whether they outright and explicitly reject the recent wave of Everybody Is Exactly Equal and Sharing Is Caring sentiment (a lie) espoused by people such as yourself, or whether they do their best to compromise (especially in light of the increasing guilt complex being imposed on those who disagree with the Modern Moral Left) and be patient with the boisterous little hamsters above, these are noble people.

Now, we found a solution to the issue of tribalism versus civilization a few hundred years ago in America and were on our way towards developing it further, with increasingly good results (WWII excepted). A good answer for how to reconcile our tribalistic nature with the difficulties of large-scale civilizations. The answer is individualism - low taxes, small and *highly* limited government, an ironclad constitutional law to serve as a buffer against tyranny, and democracy. Unfortunately I think what we need to acknowledge is that democracy is showing some serious, serious flaws. The resentful and self-unempowered individuals in a society have shown that they're more than willing to group together (and somehow get a sense of empowerment from being part of a strong group that they couldn't find within themselves as an individual, hehe I think this is your case Kode) and essentially Gank the individuals. Whether it's economic Ganking or some other form of imposition from the State. They have many devious tricks up their sleeves to do so - as I mentioned in the OP - but as also mentioned in the OP deviousness can only last for so long.

So, thanks to a quirk in Democracy, the individualist-oriented solution to an age-old problem with civilizations is being disregarded and set to the side in favor of the collectivist approach. Shame - if <Rule 2/3/4> people actually attain what they think they want they're going to be in for a rude awakening. And as usual, they won't look inwardly for blame - they will continue to blame the external. Watch.

 

wow. Well I am all for legalization of marijuana,being a Canadian and smoker/eater for that past oh, 50 years or so, in varying frequencies due to the vicissitudes of life.

No you haven't fooled me.

You continue with this strawman bullshit. Don't try to put words in my mouth, your libel to loose your fingers.

You know that congress represents .000003% of the population yet their wrong doing can have far reaching effects on all the 99,9999% of the population.

And it isn't legally accurate to claim that 99% of companies don't engage in any wrongdoing whatsoever. I guess the 10 million plus current lawsuits those law suits are absolutely no indication (however rough an estimate) of any wrong doing by all those businesses.

Again you go over the top. Who the hell is suggesting terminating the concept of limited liability? Does a private citizen have limited liability? Fictional personhood without the responsibilities of personhood is nonsense, quite apart from it being an entirely separate issue.

That's just a lame attempt man.

No I am not ignoring any facts. Course you make it sound as tho pandemonium reigns and its all the evil leftists fault.

As long as ;"your side" includes goosestepping racist fascist scumbags you're gonna find that there is a rather harsh negative reaction. You know some of us have parents and uncles and aunts (rip) who fought against the fascists. Ya wanna lie down with such filth, ya gott a figure some if is gonna get on ya.


And again you throw out nonsense numbers as tho they are facts instead of a lame justification to support your position.

The russian can't mount material espionage in this country any more?. Pass that over here man you are starting to hallucinate.


And again you pull out a bullshit number.
58% of americans think the russian interference should be serious investigated. But don't tell any of your friends, they won't believe it.

Yes false equivalency.

Trump might be pro gay but his party sure as hell aint. if you watched then you heard what they cheered for.

I totally understand you wanted to avoid the river of lies coming out of the left. Ironically you fell into the ocean of BULLSHIT trump has been foisting on the world. Bit masochistic, wot?

guess you missed the whole Obama leading the nation out of that recession. Of course it wasn't fast enough for the right, but nonetheless he left the nation way better of than he found it. And yes the ACA is a huge deal. One that from the rest of the industrial nations continually scratch their heads over. But why should we care that America spend 50% more per capita than anyone else for truly mediocre outcomes with millions unable to afford care.

Oh bullshit they see thru fake news. Hell you can't even identify real news. if you think CNN and NYT are "absurdly slanted".
If you want absurdly slanted go to fox news, rush, info wars and the army of right wing whackos "bloggers".

Oh really, if you think your dishing out pain, you really do have distorted image of your reality. But you know what? I gave you a chance and you have shown your real colors. Okay we disagree. I think you are as full of bullshit as you think me so we are even.

AS for being done with me, if you noticed as the tone tenor and content of your posts began its steep decline I began to return it. I've been engaged in intellectual knife fights on the internet since usenet and newsgroups. Granted mostly focused on nazi holocaust denying jew hating scum, but hey, its only a hop skip and jump from them to where you are ideologically. So bubbie, bring in on if ya got the cajones