Politics over Religion at MD&D

[_Res Ipsa]

Shorter Uncle Ed: I change the ordinary meaning of words to fit with my paranoia.

[_Morley]

.

[_Kishkumen]

Which "flavor" of "socialism" are we to define? Anymore, the word is arguable. You reference "a range" of definitions. What any of them are is a danger to free enterprise because the Gov't obtains more and more control over private use of property. Fascism makes no bones about the "necessity" of Gov't control for the "common good": it asserts that private enterprise is too vulnerable to the evils men do as they pursue profits. The Gov't must step in and regulate, or else evil capitalists will unbalance the market, create Mega Huge Corporation monopolies and drive out competition. So the Gov't takes control of this one and that one, bailing out Chapter Elevens left and right, and never giving back full control again. Over time,
fascism is the result. Socialism is the way to fascism. Bernie Sanders pushes a toothless private ownership; the "teeth" belong to the Gov't.

No, Ed. This isn’t some kind of Manichaean struggle between free enterprise and socialism in which any government regulation is, by definition, evil. Your narrative is really silly in the current environment. The government will regulate the market more or less, and the key is to find the level and kind of regulation that works best to create economic opportunity and wealth.

The difference between the two sides of the debate these days in ths country is that one side believes in following facts and listening to experts, while the other (GOP) has abandoned facts and practical solutions for ideological fantasies.

In that, the GOP is as dangerous as Soviet Communists. The similarity is in the pursuit of a utopian fantasy over finding practical solutions to problems. The irony is that a third-rate Russian novelist invented the ideology they are pursuing. In running from Communism, she created something even less realistic, even more naïve, and altogether inimical to civilization.

Hysterical, paranoid Americans running from anything to do with the idea of the state—the pinnacle of human organization—run into the arms of an anti-human materialism, in which individual human worth is measured in brute economic terms. Homo economicus.

Freedom too has been reduced and redefined as economic freedom, as if this were the only meaningful and salutary type of freedom that exists. This is one reason why you are laser focused on any regulation of private ownership. The truth is that your concept of economic freedom is economic libertinism, in which the wealthy have shed any responsibility to their fellow beings in order to do as they will to acquire more wealth and property, including robbing others.

[_Johannes]

I actually am a European socialist, and there is nothing approaching my form of politics in the United States at the moment. You can take comfort from that, if you like.

If the state regulating private property equals socialism, then every form of government that has ever existed is socialism. There has never been a libertarian utopia in which private property and enterprise have been absolute and untouchable.

[_Morley]

I'm still waiting for an answer as to what the whiteness of the Founding Fathers has to do with Hávamál, Asatru, white supremacists, or Uncle Ed being a Scandinavian boy.

You associated this "white Scandinavian boy" with Asatru because I like the ancient wisdom. You further asserted that this association made me a "white supremacist". White supremacist are all about "white privilege". The Founders were, according to the demagogues of the present day, all about "white privilege". So I appealed to them as alike with myself. And if they are "white privilege" dudes, then so am I. But it remains for you to make that assertion. Because I don't for a minute believe that they were pushing their race in anything that they did. In fact, the bulk of them denigrated the practices of the Southern Colonies: but had to bow beneath necessity in order to bring them into the revolution. The result was the ACW generations later. How any of that has the first thing to do with some neo-pagan literalism is beyond me. But "progressives" will make all manner of fallacious associations.

Alluding isn't asserting. Thank you for reciting of your version of social history, such as it is.

[_Kishkumen]

I actually am a European socialist, and there is nothing approaching my form of politics in the United States at the moment. You can take comfort from that, if you like.

If the state regulating private property equals socialism, then every form of government that has ever existed is socialism. There has never been a libertarian utopia in which private property and enterprise have been absolute and untouchable.

Exactly. That’s what makes this rhetoric so crazy. The extreme libertarian is the unwitting foe of civilization. Libertarian impulses are a fine corrective or balancing force, but, taken to the silly extremes of Randian philosophy, libertarianism becomes wildly unrealistic and unsustainable. Too many Americans in political power are stultified in the puerile stage of Randian philosophy. Too many Americans are similarly enamored. The truly dangerous thing is that some powerful corporate leaders have seized on this philosophy to mask their assault on the state for very selfish purposes. The little guys who go along and support this will be trampled by the powerful corporations that see informed voters as impediments to their corporate goals.

[_Uncle Ed]

No, Ed. This isn’t some kind of Manichaean struggle between free enterprise and socialism in which any government regulation is, by definition, evil. Your narrative is really silly in the current environment. The government will regulate the market more or less, and the key is to find the level and kind of regulation that works best to create economic opportunity and wealth.

But it is a good versus evil, GOP vs Democrat, struggle, yes?

Yes, the Gov't will regulate. The argument is what shall be regulated and how much.

Since the GOP (once the champions of smaller government and stronger states, i.e. promoting the general welfare through defending individual rights) has morphed into the same big government party as the Democrat, only pressure from Repubs and Indies who know that reform is necessary will bring the perspective of a freed up capitalism and individual rights back into the debate. They won the election last year. And the GOP hate "their" President, but don't dare openly oppose him yet.

The difference between the two sides of the debate these days in this country is that one side believes in following facts and listening to experts, while the other (GOP) has abandoned facts and practical solutions for ideological fantasies.

Still insisting on black and white, all or nothing: I've allowed that the GOP and Democrat are virtually alike, when speaking about the status quo of the political machines. But here you assert, again, that everything that is going wrong is all from one side.

In that, the GOP is as dangerous as Soviet Communists. The similarity is in the pursuit of a utopian fantasy over finding practical solutions to problems. The irony is that a third-rate Russian novelist invented the ideology they are pursuing. In running from Communism, she created something even less realistic, even more naïve, and altogether inimical to civilization.

I do not know of this novelist that you reference; and therefore I doubt that most Repubs and Indies know of this author who has had such an impact on their beliefs and agenda. Perhaps you've pointed out an ingredient responsible for radicalizing the GOP into clones of the Democrat.

It is the combined mindset of the control freaks and their minions who want group rights and classification of people into various IDed groups: they are the "utopians": not individualists who want to be left alone by Gov't, and want everyone else to be likewise left alone unless they break the law. So you have this world view bassendackwards. I guess that "higher education" carries this radicalizing danger, to embrace group-think.

Hysterical, paranoid Americans running from anything to do with the idea of the state—the pinnacle of human organization—run into the arms of an anti-human materialism, in which individual human worth is measured in brute economic terms. Homo economicus.

Interesting theory on what is wrong with America. Even though what you say has truth woven into it, the way that you say it is prejudiced against a larger truth: perhaps the core truth behind the main thrust of the work of the Founders: and that is a deliberately limited Fed/central Gov't and strong individual States, which are bound by an overarching Constitution that defends individuals, not groups. The most blatant fruit of this form of limited government is material pursuit and prosperity. What else does "the pursuit of happiness" consist of, other than material prosperity, security and comfort? That is the very essence of the foundation of "the good life". What you do with it, once it is offered and taken, is up to you, the individual. It is not the province of Gov't to determine that "human materialism", a moral judgment, is right or wrong. That will be determined by the aggregate of societal thinking, creating mores. The Constitution deliberately severes Gov't from making moral decisions such as you have done here.

Freedom too has been reduced and redefined as economic freedom, as if this were the only meaningful and salutary type of freedom that exists. This is one reason why you are laser focused on any regulation of private ownership. The truth is that your concept of economic freedom is economic libertinism, in which the wealthy have shed any responsibility to their fellow beings in order to do as they will to acquire more wealth and property, including robbing others.

Again, you speak truth but in a way that invites prejudice from the reader against pursuing the individual freedom to "get ahead", by virtue of work, applied intellect, and luck.

And any legislation putting the brakes on material pursuits above those achieved by another should, indeed, be "laser focused" upon as an inherent evil assumption of Gov't power. It is not the Gov't's prerogative to define the point at which "economic libertinism" is reached and prevent further affluence.

The wealthy in this Nation devote enormous sums to altruism and charity. That many/most of them support Gov't controls on everyone else at the same time as they enjoy their billions is known as irony: they don't see it that way, which deepens the ironic situation that they promote. Having gained their fortunes through the "American recipe" of economic affluence,
they seem to mistrust the masses to try and do likewise. For our own protection, Gov't must intervene and control the economy.

[_Kishkumen]

Yeah, Ed, I wish it weren’t so, but the GOP has gone off the rails. I definitely do think the choice we are making is a lesser of two evils. The greater evil is the party that has rejected science and expertise, the party that has wholeheartedly embraced oligarchy and threatens the Republic. I never said that the choice was evil versus good. I’ll leave that to suckers like you. Trump and the GOP don’t believe in smaller government. That’s demonstrably false. They believe in funneling money to their donors, government contracts to their buddies, and making the poor foot the bill. It’s the pretense of the small government position that makes it especially vile.

[_Uncle Ed]

Exactly. That’s what makes this rhetoric so crazy. The extreme libertarian is the unwitting foe of civilization. Libertarian impulses are a fine corrective or balancing force, but, taken to the silly extremes of Randian philosophy, libertarianism becomes wildly unrealistic and unsustainable. Too many Americans in political power are stultified in the puerile stage of Randian philosophy. Too many Americans are similarly enamored. The truly dangerous thing is that some powerful corporate leaders have seized on this philosophy to mask their assault on the state for very selfish purposes. The little guys who go along and support this will be trampled by the powerful corporations that see informed voters as impediments to their corporate goals.

Is it rhetoric to point out errors? Does a representative proportion of Libertarians support the destruction of civilization through excessive independence (removal of the government oversight into all projects for the general welfare, and Gov't protection of natural resources from controlling monopolies, etc.)? I don't believe so.

If some corporate leaders dream of having a free hand under a Libertarian government, I would say they are mistaken. Nobody in their right mind would put up with the threatening "range war" as competing Mega Huge Corporations seized natural resources and killed off competition. How stupid do you think that your fellow citizens are?

[_Uncle Ed]

Yeah, Ed, I wish it weren’t so, but the GOP has gone off the rails. I definitely do think the choice we are making is a lesser of two evils. The greater evil is the party that has rejected science and expertise, the party that has wholeheartedly embraced oligarchy and threatens the Republic. I never said that the choice was evil versus good. I’ll leave that to suckers like you. Trump and the GOP don’t believe in smaller government. That’s demonstrably false. They believe in funneling money to their donors, government contracts to their buddies, and making the poor foot the bill. It’s the pretense of the small government position that makes it especially vile.

The pretense was called in the last election. Trump's base is watching what he does very closely. So far he has not violated their trust. One year in, his base is still with him. Meanwhile, the GOP fulminates in relative silence: they value their political careers and fear saying the wrong things, or acting prematurely against him.

Oligarchy is hardly on one side only. The political machines, both "halves" of it, would love nothing more than a return to the status quo that they shared, that The Donald upset.