pulling peter to pay paul
so anyway, i've been indulging in flogging Ron Paul partisans up down and sideways in 2 plus 2's politics forum. this is a glorious waste of time, because they are mostly not very smart or very literate, but i miss bickering sometimes, so i like to get it out of my system. you can read the thread "Dr. Paul's chances" if you really want to see the clueless in action. i'm doing it entirely ex tempore but obv. it's no real challenge. you wouldn't support Paul if you weren't an idiot or an arsehole. or mostly both. and 2 plus 2, being the type of place it is, attracts a lot of both (poker attracts nerds and social outcasts, and disproportionate numbers of antiauthority types).Ron Paul wants us all to live in 1770, but a mythical 1770 that he imagines would spring into being if we somehow rid ourselves of the accretions of the past couple of hundred years, including the government. however, i'm a statist precisely because i believe that governments can be forces for good, and that without them, we will be in 1770, which mostly sucked.
they are not, of course, entirely forces for good. but given the choice between the protective arm of the state and the fuckyoujackism of libertarianism, i'm choosing the guys who would at least make some small attempt to restrain the worst excesses of the rich and strong, instead of encouraging them to fuck the rest of us as ferociously as they can.
i'm quite sure that Paul does not believe that he is actually endorsing the ferocious fucking of the majority, but that is where his thinking leads. well, it probably wouldn't even get there. he'd destroy the economy so quickly, were he permitted to, that distinguishing who was fucked from who wasn't would be too difficult.
the nerds get excited about Paul's chances, but they are basically nil. the establishment will not permit him to win, even if he did have a chance. which he doesn't. he is certainly a unique candidate: unique in his lack of appeal to women, blacks, Hispanics, the poor in general and the wealthy too, who benefit too much from owning the government to want to disband it. it's only the moderately comfortable who think libertarianism is a good idea, because they hate taxes. the actual rich don't pay any, so they're all in favour of them, unless some goddamn pinko starts thinking that they should pay them.
look, a genuine populist would be a good idea for the States right now. don't get me wrong. (and i don't mean a centre-rightist like Obama, who fakes the populism because he thinks there's votes in it.) America's government is seriously skewed away from what people actually want, and what serves them, and a candidate who could right the ship a bit would be welcome. but some deranged fucktard who thinks that America should return to cartal money and refuse to talk to the rest of the world, while dismantling its entire governmental apparatus? no thanks.
and you know. here's a thing. a lot of Americans, when they discuss politics, will devolve into whining about the constitution. but America's constitution is not well suited to the modern day. it has the same flaws as a model as, say, the bible or the qur'an, and should be considered in much the same light: an interesting historical document, not a fucking roadmap. if it had been perfect, it would not have required so much amending, duh. Americans' insistence on referring present-day political questions back to the thoughts of 18th century landed gentry is amusing to the rest of us, who realise that the solutions to today's problems will be found today, not two hundred-odd years ago. mostly what people end in doing -- and guys, you even have a Supreme Court that makes it its business to do this -- is reading the bare sentences of the constitution like they were tealeaves, discerning meaning that can be applied to today's questions in answers that only barely resemble what you claim they do. Paul cherrypicks the constitution. he'll say, it guarantees life, and then say, so no abortions, ladies. (ignoring other provisions of the constitution that protect a person from state intrusion.) but the constitution did not say a thing about abortions, did not say whether foetuses are people and cannot be construed to have a position on this issue either way. (or can be construed to have one both ways.) so it's no use as a guide. and as i noted to the paultards, devolving decisions that affect personal rights to the individual states has not always had a good outcome. i fiercely oppose doing so, because i feel that minority interests can much more easily affect outcomes very adversely for other minorities in smaller polities, but tend to find it more difficult to construct large enough coalitions to wield power in bigger ones. which is pretty much why Paul and people like him favour states' rights on issues such as abortion. they realise that they cannot win that battle nationwide, because the population as a whole does not share their view, but they can win it in smaller localities where either the population supports them or they can simply ignore the majority's views because it is easier to control the decision-making apparatus.
doesn't my view intrude on personal liberty? you're damned right it does. i think personal liberty should be restrained. it's to the benefit of the weak that the strong find themselves constrained, as anyone who works 14 hours a day in a sweatshop will confirm for you.
and, of course, even most libertarians believe in restraints on personal liberty. they do not believe you should be allowed to shoot your neighbour for no reason. (they would allow you to shoot him if he trespassed, which i wouldn't, but they would at least bar you from shooting him on a whim.) they accept the notion that freedom cannot be absolute. well, after that, we are just bickering over where we place the bar, aren't we?
curiously enough, i'm a small-l libertarian. i believe the state should protect us from others, but not from ourselves, basically. i strongly oppose "morality laws", such as the prohibition on narcotics. i also oppose seatbelt laws and i could be convinced on compulsory vaccination (although there's the point to be overcome that if vaccination is not mandatory, it is close to pointless). i generally prefer education to restriction where possible, but i prefer restriction to unfettered hurting where it isn't. i don't believe that liberalism or progressiveness, whatever you want to call it, is opposed to libertarianism. far from it. i believe that they are bedfellows. but i suppose the difference is that most liberals separate the private and public spheres. just as you can call a man a liar in a conversation with your wife, but cannot do so with impunity in the public square, i feel it is right to be liberal with the private and restrain the public. think nudity and you quickly understand how i draw the line.
this is probably why liberals hate libertarians so passionately. we see them in some ways as our dark cousins. we allow our care for others to guide our political philosophy (sometimes to too great an extent, i'll grant you); they allow common human greed to. but greed is not good. you can argue all you like that it creates wealth, and we would have less if we weren't greedy (let's not even begin on the discussion of whether having less would not actually be better), but we don't have to incentivise ourselves with money and goods. (money is in any case only an expression of obligation--we could easily find other ways to express that, or to show our understanding of status and appreciation of those who have acquired it through means that benefit us all: we do not have to keep score with money.) we could even try love. what a glorious idea that a "high net worth" individual could be not one who has tons of moolah acquired by exploiting others who were less fortunate but one who made others happy. (part of the reason i dislike libertarians is that they insist that they do not hate other people, but want us all to be free and equal so we can all become rich together, yet are diehard capitalists, while ignoring that richness is a measure, not just an outcome, of disparity, created largely by exploitation, and that without restraint, ordering or wider cooperation, parity is impossible. once we do not have a level playing field, equity is harder and harder to achieve without broader authority. the bigger fish keep eating the smaller without a fishkeeper to prevent them from doing it.)
and if you don't think 1770 sucked, try a Rawlsian thought experiment. you're a field nigger in Georgia. still love the good old days?
posted by Dr Zen @ 4:36 pm
28 Comments:
This comment has been removed by the author.
You could only believe that if your reaction to get majorly fucked over is to join up with the larger gang of thugs.
It should be obvious, Zen, that Paul's mythical 1770 does not include slavery. I do hope your "flogging" of the Paultards exhibits a higher quality of thought than that.
Don: You could only believe that if your reaction to get majorly fucked over is to join up with the larger gang of thugs.
i don't consider supporting the existence of a sensible government equivalent to "joining up with a gang of thugs".
total absolute freedom, though beautiful sounding, would in reality be quite troublesome.
have you never met a whacko before?
Libertarians live under the delusion that bridges and buildings would be relatively safe structures to use purely out of the capitalistic altruism of Construction Contracters and whatnot.
extrapolate that out to just about every other type of merchant or snake-oil salesmen.
quick cash is a lot easier to make than an honest living -- so the natural free-market forces would never be enough to shape ethical "corporate" responsibility unless there were reasonable checks and balances in place that were enforcable.
people can't simply "vote with their feet" if their feet have been cut-off in the process, ya know?
the same non-Libertarian principles apply to a reasonable national defense and a reasonably consistent (and sensible) criminal justice system.
what Libertians do have right is just everything else, including many laws which intrude on personal liberty for no good reason whatsoever.
Don, the real 1770 did. that's the point, dur. HTH.
I can understand how a Ron Paul- supporting forum would be a good let-out for some built-up steam, but honestly, Zen, why would you bother? It's too easy. The people who support him have obviously not moved beyond 2nd grade social studies. When I first heard him speak, I thought he was a comedian. I know now he's a clown. Chances of being elected? Are you fucking kidding me?
And Don, 1770 still sucked pretty bad for the majority of the populations of countries that didn't have slavery.
mino, you're right. Like I say, easy bit of fun. Not challenging.
I had given up easy forums (like MW) because it's so unrewarding, but I've never really replaced them, and don't know what else to do that will be fun, and you can't think poker poker poker all the time, and get nowhere with it.
And the point about slavery is that you don't choose where your road leads when you pick it. Marx didn't want North Korea. I'm sure Ron Paul doesn't want slavery, but that's where his road leads. Slavery or horrible oppression of kinds that are far worse than having a strong government.
I know what you mean, believe it or not. The "slavery" that modern corporations create out of income and wealth disparity is in some ways similar to how the British etc. got rich off sugar plantations in the 1700s. But there are differences, and frankly I don't see a bad situation (e.g. Chinese rural poverty) being TRULY solved by some system better than capitalism.
I am not a RP supporter. I don't support any of those clowns.
The point about 1770 was Z made it up as an anti-Paul straw man and suddenly it became the new measure round here.
$zero, I wouldn't disagree with much of what you said, but that you
don't consider supporting the existence of a sensible government equivalent to "joining up with a gang of thugs".
Not if it really is sensible. But your implication seemed to be that "liberals" and "conservatives" will make more sensible government than "libertarians", and that is simply unsupportable. The worst government excess comes of political groups that speak first of government "accomplishing something". Libertarians generally don't take that track. In some areas of course we would all push them to. It would only be sensible.
1770 is not a straw man. The constitution that he worships is an artefact of the late eighteenth century. Its concerns belong to that time.
zen, the US Constitution is hardly an artefact, it's a living breathing agreement -- hence the provision for amendments.
what is it about it that you find unsuitable to the task of modern times?
to the extent that it has been abused and disregarded, i'd agree that it's useless.
but for the most part, there's nothing wrong with the separation of powers into three branches, is there?
nor is there anything wrong or outdated about the Bill of Rights -- freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, the right to protect oneself, the right to a fair trial, the right to be free from unreasonable searches, the right to not incriminate oneself, the right to privacy, etc.
again, not to mention the right of the people to amend the Constitution itself.
though flawed (and usually only taken advantage of by those who always try to abuse _everything_), the adverserial American democratic republic system is still the best designed government i can think of so far.
you got better one in mind?
where is it?
Don: But your implication seemed to be that "liberals" and "conservatives" will make more sensible government than "libertarians", and that is simply unsupportable.
IMO, a sensible government is one in which opposing ideologies are able to try to make their best cases and proceed forward through sensible concessions and compromises -- ideally, anyway.
oddly enough, a government made up of only Libertarians would be a tyranny of sorts.
Don: The worst government excess comes of political groups that speak first of government "accomplishing something". Libertarians generally don't take that track.
i don't have a problem with any sensible goverment trying to "accomplish something" as long as what they're trying to accomplish is mutually benefitial and not harmful.
some projects would never be possible with only private enterprise because of the lack of immediate profit incentives -- due to the research and development curve.
NASA comes to mind, as a sort of an example, to the extent that the public money was eventually well spent for the good of its citizens in general -- all of the useful space-age inventions, not to mention all of the jobs it created.
and it got us all looking outward to the infinite challenges of the universe instead of fighting eachother over the limited resources of the earth.
i would argue that another good thing for the government to try to accomplish would be the development of safe, cheap, environmentally friendly renewable energy sources like solar power, for instance.
compare that to what the free market alone created -- a huge unprofitable "private enterprise" pollution problem, and bottomless pit motivations for destructive wars and other annoyingly dangerous stuff.
a combination of free enterprise and intelligent sensible government is probably the best mix.
Zero, our form of gov't (ours is similar) works for vested interests. Discuss.
in fact, both arose as a compromise between landed and mercantile interests.
"what is it about it that you find unsuitable to the task of modern times?"
You are fucking kidding, right? It has proved entirely inadequate against creeping fascism.
This is apart from its other glaring flaws.
Zero, our form of gov't (ours is similar) works for vested interests. Discuss.
and the way it's designed, we all have a vested interest, theoretically.
sure, those who inherit great wealth from others have a major edge resourcewise (if not wisdomwise), but everyone is born with the right and the reasonable opportunity to increase their own resources.
(unless, like moi, they get blackballed along the way by a bunch of evil fascist crybabies).
personally, in a capitalistic society, i think we should all have a birthright to a minimum piece of land (taxfree for life -- otherwise we are born absolute slaves to an artificially created government-imposed economy -- is that ironic or what?), but even that wouldn't even out the resource problem.
are you suggesting that your own children should not prosper from your personal efforts?
that there should be no private property at all?
talk about living in the 1780's.
private property itself isn't the problem. it's those people who get corrupted by it, and blinded by it, and thus abuse it.
in fact, both arose as a compromise between landed and mercantile interests.
and also lovers of freedom and justice and fairness.
not everyone who "owns" private property is a gluttonous greedy slave owner without a conscience.
(though most are deluded fuckwits of fear).
it's still largely a free marketplace for those willing to play and compete in it (beyond the "security" of their hourly wages, that is).
IOW, you too can be one of those people with a larger-than-most "vested interest" in how things go.
but even if you choose not to increase your vested interest, you still have your wage-earner vested interest in how things go.
(or your homeless dude vested interest).
zen (re: Constitution) It has proved entirely inadequate against creeping fascism.
not yet, it hasn't.
it's looking mighty bleak, i'll grant you that.
the founders failed to take into account the ability of lobbyists to take over the media.
they never saw the power of the media coming -- they couldn't, since it was as of yet not there.
instead of three branches of government, it probably should have been four.
This is apart from its other glaring flaws.
the flaws are all there to be tweaked.
how would you change things?
besides your own surrender to despair, what's stopping you from advocating better versions?
"personally, in a capitalistic society, i think we should all have a birthright to a minimum piece of land"
Because we do not, property is theft. Make the leap and we'll make a philosopher of you yet.
"are you suggesting that your own children should not prosper from your personal efforts?"
as bad as that sounds, I truly believe that dynasties of privilege are worse.
"and also lovers of freedom and justice and fairness."
I truly do not believe that at least two of them are served by our systems.
"it's still largely a free marketplace for those willing to play and compete in it (beyond the "security" of their hourly wages, that is)."
Tell that to the coyotes, who profit from that not being true.
You do not understand what a vested interest in. Because many many systems have the same outcome for me, you are just wrong.
"the founders failed to take into account the ability of lobbyists to take over the media."
No, they made one branch far far too powerful, and failed to take into account that another would become a bastion of privilege.
You cannot have a just government while it costs so much money to become a congressperson. I would select citizens at random for one branch. I am not kidding.
"besides your own surrender to despair, what's stopping you from advocating better versions?"
What's the point? No one listens. No one cares. It's like my whole life spent explaining obvious true things to Mrs Zen and she doesn't give a shit. Eventually, you start believing you must have it all wrong or that if you have some of it right, you have wasted your time figuring it out anyway.
" "what is it about it that you find unsuitable to the task of modern times?"
You are fucking kidding, right? It has proved entirely inadequate against creeping fascism."
---
This is more true than many realize.
Because we do not, property is theft.
because we can set it up that way if we wanted to, property is not theft.
but even that fact aside, in general, property is not theft.
it's only theft when it IS theft.
most of the rest of the time, property is just a temporary illusion of control (and usually an uncreative wasted "use" of limited resources).
IOW: a mostly pointless self-indulgence that feeds our delusions of security.
Make the leap and we'll make a philosopher of you yet.
does it pay any better than being a philosopher undergrad?
"are you suggesting that your own children should not prosper from your personal efforts?"
as bad as that sounds, I truly believe that dynasties of privilege are worse.
um, we're not talking about some theoretical "dynasty of privilege" here, we're talking about your kids.
look how much you yourself are willing to sacrifice for them.
do you really think that you yourself cannot transfer your "wealth" to your children in a way that is not damaging to the rest of society (or your children)?
so, because of the stupidity and laziness of other people's "transfers", you're throwing out the babies with the bathwater!
ba'dum, chsh!
rather than pointlessly penalizing all children everywhere, educate the shitty parents instead.
yes, Virginia, even rich people can be total idiots.
What's the point? No one listens. No one cares. It's like my whole life spent explaining obvious true things to Mrs Zen and she doesn't give a shit.
Eventually, you start believing you must have it all wrong or that if you have some of it right, you have wasted your time figuring it out anyway.
while this is definitely an amusing anecdote, as a student of history, you know better than that!
progress eventually happens.
and not because people give up trying to convince others what's true and beautiful and benefitial.
granted, once we progress past one annoyance we always seem to find more complex problems to fret over, but that's all part of the fun!
right?
You cannot have a just government while it costs so much money to become a congressperson.
you can if the congressperson is reasonably just.
besides, if one is creative enough, one doesn't need massive amounts of money to get elected.
I would select citizens at random for one branch. I am not kidding.
since you didn't identify which branches you were refering to, all the rest of your comment was too vague to respond to.
Tell that to the coyotes, who profit from that not being true.
huh?
firstly, what's not true about it?
secondly, what do you mean by coyotes? smugglers of low-wage immigrant workers or just dishonest people in general?
in either case, sure, there will always be uncreative people who try to illegally subvert a system for their own lazy easy gain.
name any system where that is not the case.
the best solution is to somehow make it unprofitable to do so, no?
"because we can set it up that way if we wanted to, property is not theft."
This is just an idiotic comment. We cannot set it up that way. In case you haven't noticed, we're completely lacking power.
If your comments continue in this vein, I'm done with this.
"um, we're not talking about some theoretical "dynasty of privilege" here, we're talking about your kids."
I don't have different rules for myself.
"do you really think that you yourself cannot transfer your "wealth" to your children in a way that is not damaging to the rest of society (or your children)?"
My wealth? Sigh.
"rather than pointlessly penalizing all children everywhere, educate the shitty parents instead."
Okay, we're done. I do not want to "penalise" children. I want to stop one dying of malnutrition while another eats $100 steaks. No amount of educating the rich will get them to stop being greedy shits.
There is no consensus. I don't know why you have convinced yourself there is. There is not. Jeezus.
In case you haven't noticed, we're completely lacking power.
and you called _my_ comment idiotic?
yikes.
Post a Comment
<< Home