It started well enough, a grass roots party that caught wildfire and stopped the democrats cold. It became the new buzz word and the place everybody wanted to run and kiss butt. Then thins went sour. Here are the reasons I think that happened.
1 Really bad leadership.Most of the tea party leadership, were failed politicans and shock jocks Others were rich people who wanted a power grab. Then there were the crazy nuts that were let in because they railed on the left insanly
2.Video footage. Without a firm leadership, anybody could grab the mic and say whatever. Racial slurs were common and crazy ideas like 'Digital tv is gonna mind control you!" went viral. While footage of Teaparty protesters harrasing sick protesters and verbaly assaulting black congressmen became easy talking poits for the left.
3. Geeting waaaay to angry. You've seen it or heard it, some radio or tv host goes off on a woman yelling like a 3 year old, because she said something he didn't like. No man should ever talk to a lady like that, for starters, and secondly yelling at somebody is the best way to insure they will never hear a word you say.
4.Leaning to the right, a bit too much. Everyone was so in a rush to get to the right we ended up with people talking about trading chickens for doctor's visits, intergration, and leaving the union.
5. We stand for for....um? The tea party had at least 50 stances on any given issue. The constitution shouldn't be changed one second, the next it should be. The government should stay out of the oil spill/Why isn't the government doing anything about the oil spill, and my favorite The government should let the market fix itself/ The government should be fixing the jobs market. it's like they rolled a d6 on everything they did.
6.Letting in no good republicans. Old washed up republicans used the Tea party to try and make a comeback, from john Mccains "I was never a mavrick!"To other senetors running away from bills they thought of themselves. These same republicansare now retreating from the teaparty now they they have won the primaries.
7.Purity test. It's like the age old, "Are you black enough" thing. Just a way of stamping out people who don't agree with you, and that's a great way to kill a populist grass roots movement. Who laied these rules out? what if i'm a conservative that supports gays? too bad. What if I lean left but think some programs could be cut? Oh well. You will never have peole agree 100% of the time on everything. that's how bush and the rebublicans as a whole got swept in 2006.
8.Fox news. They used the tea party, and then when teaparty members started running, they were quick to say, "You should vote republican to make sure the Democrats lose." They then used the Tea party to whore out, "Democrats are bad and Obama is the devil" books.
9.Say what?!? The tea party became the platform to say things that whould normally get people in trouble, under the guise of free speech, prety soon it became like looking at a live action internet forum with no mods.
10 What's your issue, man. The tea party started because people were mad about the economy. That has been overcome by people talking about how far away should a place of worship be, gays getting married or going to war, owning guns to fight off the government, Islam is a cult, Mexicans cause every thing including cancer, democrats want a one world government, and black democrats are Communist russian spies. People could get behind the first issue, not so much the rest.
I really do feel like this was a wasted chance for a viable 3rd party, and not nutcases gone wild.
Ahtman wrote:We are having a postmortem for something that isn't dead yet?
This.
The tea party is now in the same position most young movements are. It has yet to reach consensus and outsiders are latching on to try and save their careers. That isn't the same thing as faltering.
personally I think tea partiers are a godsend to democrats. they're alienating alot of people whose support they need to get their guy into the white house. I'm hoping and praying that they and the christian right get together and nominate palin in 2012. There's no way the country will ever vote her into office. Not after bush.
As long as the republican party is driven by extremists like the tea partiers or the fundamentalist right they will stay in opposition. which is just fine.
AF
Falteres as in most of the Teaparty canidates that ran in the republican races didn't get the nod. Also the whole anti incombent thing turned out to be a bust for both parties. The tea party has only widened the gap between conservative moderates and fringe members
AbaddonFidelis wrote:personally I think tea partiers are a godsend to democrats. they're alienating alot of people whose support they need to get their guy into the white house. I'm hoping and praying that they and the christian right get together and nominate palin in 2012. There's no way the country will ever vote her into office. Not after bush.
As long as the republican party is driven by lazy people and people in denial of the source of our economic problems *cough* House minority leader *cough* they will stay in opposition. which is just fine.
AF
Fix'd for ya
But anyway... I think the right as a whole has just been a bunch of things that just do not make sense.
Like having the whole lame-duck period off depending on who wins the election or not?
And how the tax cuts are a major part of why we are in debt, yet saying that we do not have to pay for them since they are already in place (can someone explain that to me please?).
sexiest_hero wrote:It started well enough, a grass roots party that caught wildfire and stopped the democrats cold. It became the new buzz word and the place everybody wanted to run and kiss butt. Then thins went sour. Here are the reasons I think that happened.
The Tea Party was never a grass-roots movement. Pure astroturf, the entire movement was initially funded by the Koch brothers, who own the second largest corporation in the world. These are some of the richest and most powerful men in the world, and they are huge financiers of the libertarian movement, helped finace the anti-health care astroturfing effort, and are major funders of the right wing noise machine. Basically their goal is to destroy the government and reduce the greater mass of Americans to impoverished serfs without any legal recourse against the economic power of the elites. And if not for Fox News relentlessly promoting the Tea Party events, they would have already disappeared.
For a real grassroots movement, you need to look at the left. Detroit recently hosted a socialist national forum drew 15,000 people (to Detroit), and that was without any corporate sponsorship and without any mainstream media coverage at all. Not even MSNBC, supposedly the Fox of the left, reported the event.
The Tea Party's real problem is that it is nascent fascist movement. There is literally no difference between the Tea Party and the Nazi Party in 1932. They are the exact same thing: Aggressive right-wing movements funded by wealthy elites, whose beliefs are primarily a grab bag of nonsense and insanity all predicated on excessive amounts of hate and fear. The Tea Party is basically a bunch of idiots and suckers who have bought into the right wing's nonsensical beliefs that a lack of constraint on economic power is somehow equatable to freedom-for-all, and that socialists and progressives are the enemy.
Which is hilarious, since its the leftists (the real leftists, the ones that aren't allowed on television and are completely ignored by the mainstream media) that have all the ideas that would get us out of our current mess, and even give the conservatives the smaller government and lower taxes they claim to crave. But if those leftist's ideas were embraced, it would ruin men like the Koch brothers, so the elites that push the right-wing agenda spend millions to rally useful idiots to their causes. Hence, tea parties.
warboss spinetwizta wrote:grat now lets rule 34 it to ensure its continued existance QUICKLY!
Stop posting that everywhere. Spouting memes like a /b/tard doesn't help your case at all.
On-topic: The Tea Party was always a joke. It's based on xenophobia, nationalism and extremist libertarianism. They'd be laughed off the political scene over here.
Cheese Elemental wrote:On-topic: The Tea Party was always a joke. It's based on xenophobia, nationalism and extremist libertarianism. They're a bunch of bloody nice blokes, and most people would be more than happy to have a barbie and drink a few tubes of lager with them over here.
Fixed.
On a serious note, I think their problems stem from the name - it's just not credible.
Tea party makes me think:
...which looks like splendid fun, of course, but I think The Patriot Movement would be better. Snappier. Plus it sounds like a Ludlum novel.
Gailbraithe wrote:
The Tea Party's real problem is that it is nascent fascist movement. There is literally no difference between the Tea Party and the Nazi Party in 1932.
Well.... the tea partiers aren't clamoring for an end to the treaty of versailles.... that's at least one question they're pretty moderate on.
I disagree with the tea party platform too but calling them nazis is wrong. American politics has plenty of name calling and wild accusations in it. Point of fact they dont have a whole lot in common. Nazis were committed to anti semitism, authoritarian rule, and extensive state intervention in the private sector. Tea partiers arent any more or less anti semetic than the rest of the white population in this country and are actively opposed to authoritarianism and state intervention in the market place.
Anyway I think they're wrong but that doesnt make them nazis. You can disagree with someone's politics without villifying them you know.
AF
Gailbraithe wrote:The Tea Party was never a grass-roots movement. Pure astroturf, the entire movement was initially funded by the Koch brothers, who own the second largest corporation in the world. These are some of the richest and most powerful men in the world, and they are huge financiers of the libertarian movement, helped finace the anti-health care astroturfing effort, and are major funders of the right wing noise machine.
Freedomworks, one of the primary groups responsible for the creation of the Tea Party, just moved into the same building in New York as FOX News.
The Tea Party's real problem is that it is nascent fascist movement. There is literally no difference between the Tea Party and the Nazi Party in 1932. They are the exact same thing: Aggressive right-wing movements funded by wealthy elites, whose beliefs are primarily a grab bag of nonsense and insanity all predicated on excessive amounts of hate and fear.
I'm no fan of the Tea Party but that's a bit much.
Gailbraithe wrote:
The Tea Party's real problem is that it is nascent fascist movement. There is literally no difference between the Tea Party and the Nazi Party in 1932.
I disagree with the tea party platform too but calling them nazis is wrong. American politics has plenty of name calling and wild accusations in it. Point of fact they dont have a whole lot in common. Nazis were committed to anti semitism, authoritarian rule, and extensive state intervention in the private sector. Tea partiers arent any more or less anti semetic than the rest of the white population in this country and are actively opposed to authoritarianism and state intervention in the market place.
Fascism doesn't require antisemitism. Islamaphobia, homophobia, any kind of fear of an other is all that is necessary for fascism. The Tea Party (and conservative movement in general) is a nascent fascist movement, and it's fairly easy to demonstrate. First one needs a definition of fascism. I myself find Umberto Eco's essay "Eternal Fascism: Or 14 Ways of Looking At A Blackshirt" to be a robust and thorough definition of fascism (or more precisely, ur-fascism) that is useful for such discussions. Alternate definitions of fascist exist, but Eco's definition is in-line with most scholarly work on the subject and presents a nice 14 point checklist one can compare against the Tea Party/conservative movement.
The only real difference (and it is a real and important difference) is that the conservative movement is, for the moment, less violent than the fascist movements of the 20th century. But the violent rhetoric ("second ammendment remedies" being my favorite euphemism for "vote for us or we'll kill you" ever) is a dangerous warning sign, and always presents the danger of inciting real violence.
But if the slew of extreme right candidates who have rode this tide of crazy to the nov. 4th election all lose (which I suspect most will), then what happens? Does the right accept that this is a democracy and they lost the middle by embracing their extreme, or are they so extreme that they believe their own rhetoric and attack the Tyrant Obama and his Imperial Death Democrats to Save The Republic From Itself? When they have convinced themselves that anyone opposed to their agenda is a traitor to America, and that they are the only Real Americans, what happens if they lose?
In 1994 the right whipped its extreme base up into a frothing hysteria to take down Bill Clinton, and they rode that wave of anger and rage they stirred up to electoral victory. And then, in 1995, Timothy McVeigh struck a blow for 2nd Amendment rights and a smaller, less intrusive government when he blew up a bomb and killed 450 of his fellow Americans. We've had a dozen attempted and/or successful terroristic attacks from the right in the last two years. How many of them did we hear about in the news? How many of them were properly identified as right wing terrorism?
I mean seriously, there are people in this country right now running for positions in government that believe that we should have internment camps for Muslims. You may find it hard to believe that fascism could exist in America, but all the conditions for it are ripe. The worst part, in my feeling about it, is that you can't even have a rational discussion about it because simply pointing out that what the right is currently preaching is totally fascism is considered "insulting" or "Godwin's Law." And it's a horrible social no-no to insult the thin-skinned conservatives. They demand appeasement, and insist that no one call them by name...
Given that we're talking about the Tea Party I suppose it was inevitable that someone would Godwin's Law this thing pretty fast. I expected a little build up though rather than one person just leaping for that comparison.
Gailbraithe wrote:The worst part, in my feeling about it, is that you can't even have a rational discussion about it because simply pointing out that what the right is currently preaching is totally fascism is considered "insulting" or "Godwin's Law." And it's a horrible social no-no to insult the thin-skinned conservatives. They demand appeasement, and insist that no one call them by name...
Yeah, calling the other side baby Nazis is just a really great way to open up a frank and honest discussion. No one could ever find that comparison insulting.
Gailbraithe wrote:
Fascism doesn't require antisemitism. Islamaphobia, homophobia, any kind of fear of an other is all that is necessary for fascism.
you didnt say fascists. you said nazis.
Gailbraithe wrote:
The Tea Party (and conservative movement in general) is a nascent fascist movement, and it's fairly easy to demonstrate. First one needs a definition of fascism. I myself find Umberto Eco's essay "Eternal Fascism: Or 14 Ways of Looking At A Blackshirt" to be a robust and thorough definition of fascism (or more precisely, ur-fascism) that is useful for such discussions. Alternate definitions of fascist exist, but Eco's definition is in-line with most scholarly work on the subject and presents a nice 14 point checklist one can compare against the Tea Party/conservative movement.
A medieval scholar wouldnt be my first stop if I were looking for a scholarly definition of fascism. In the historical sense Fascism is a political movement beginning in Italy in the 1920s and spreading to other parts of Europe as a response to communism and the great depression. It refers to specific people and to specific ideas. Only in its modern sense is it a broad brush for liberals to tar their conservative opponents with - which is of course what Umberto Eco means by "ur-fascism" or "eternal fascism" as opposed to just "fascism."
All the same lets look at his points.
1. The first feature of Ur-Fascism is the cult of tradition.
2. Traditionalism implies the rejection of modernism.
3. Irrationalism also depends on the cult of action for action's sake
4. The critical spirit makes distinctions, and to distinguish is a sign of modernism.
5. Besides, disagreement is a sign of diversity
6. Ur-Fascism derives from individual or social frustration.
7. To people who feel deprived of a clear social identity, Ur-Fascism says that their only privilege is the most common one, to be born in the same country
8. The followers must feel humiliated by the ostentatious wealth and force of their enemies.
9. For Ur-Fascism there is no struggle for life but, rather, life is lived for struggle.
10. Elitism is a typical aspect of any reactionary ideology, insofar as it is fundamentally aristocratic, and aristocratic and militaristic elitism cruelly implies contempt for the weak.
11. In such a perspective everybody is educated to become a hero.
12. Since both permanent war and heroism are difficult games to play, the Ur-Fascist transfers his will to power to sexual matters
13. Ur-Fascism is based upon a selective populism, a qualitative populism, one might say.
14. Ur-Fascism speaks Newspeak.
How far do these 14 points correspond to the tea party movement?
1. Fairly well. Tea partiers are definitely traditionalists. But then so is any conservative, so I think that goes to my point about Eco wanting to tar his political opponents by calling them dirty names. (its not just the fascists of Italy and Germany we need to beware of.... its all fascists [read conservatives])
2. Definitely not. Rejection of modernism would be advocating a state religion, monarchy, the return to political power of a landed aristocracy, hereditary bondage to the land, etc etc. Tea party is another word for libertarian, and libertarianism is definitely a modern, not a pre-modern, political philosophy.
3. Definitely not. Some tea partiers dont like the intellectual establishment, but if you read what Eco wrote under his 3rd point, what he really means is anti-intellectualism. Libertarians might have a wrong philosophy but they are not stupid and they are not anti-intellectuals. Atlas Shrugged, the Bell Curve, etc., are works that make reasoned arguments and persuade to man's rationality, not to his prejudices, as Eco will later say is a defining hall mark of fascism.
4 and 5. No more or less so than can be applied to any other political party right now. Umberto Eco says that an Ur-Fascist regards disagreement as treason. The tea partiers are irritated and there is definitely a group of people within them that regards their political opponents as traitors, but so far Palin has not advocated putting the President to death by firing squad (for instance) or putting Nancy Pelosi on trial for being a traitor. Additionally you, by calling your political opponents a bunch of nazis, are participating in this same activity - intolerance for difference of opinion and the suggestion that your opponents arent real americans - they're fascists. Presumably if it came down to it you would advocate force to stop these american nazis and their evil plans, since that was, after all, the only way to deal with the german nazis.
6. I guess. We're all frustrated. That's part of modern life. For Eco or you to start psychoanalyzing your political opponents (their politics stems from personal, sexual, professional frustration etc) is besides the point. Maybe the tea partiers are frustrated. Maybe you are. So what? Its the idea, not the person, that matters. I'm honestly surprised that Eco would descend to this kind of ad hominem attack, but I guess everyone has their moments of weakness. Dont be a slave to the man with a PhD - anyone whose thinking clearly can see that this is *not* a valid grounds for attacking your political opponents.
7. No. Tea partiers are not advancing a *racial* or a *nationalist* agenda - they are advancing an *economic* agenda of *limited government.* This one is completely inapplicable.
8. No. The tea partiers are *supporting* not *opposing* the wealthy class in this country. In a way it surprises me, because the most ardent republicans tend to be pretty poor, but they consistently vote the economic interests of their employers rather than their own. Anyway the tea party is not a reaction to the ostentatious wealth of the left - those people are the drivers, not the enemies, of the tea party movement.
9. Fair. Libertarians tend to view economic competition as a kind of darwinian process where might makes right.
10. Almost fair. He ruins it by talking about the aristocracy. There is no landed, hereditary aristocracy in this country, therefor the tea party cannot support it. In so much as we have any kind of aristocracy at all it is an aristocracy of wealth and ability. But thats true of any country with a modern economy, so whatever.
11. Fair. But how is that a bad thing? I dont know that the struggle to be a hero necessarily leads to the killing of other people as Eco says. Maybe in Europe 1920-1944 it did. For Ayn Rand it explicitly does not. The counter point here is that to a liberal like Eco no one is a hero - we are all just sort of insignificant drifting specs who can only accomplish things in groups. Its an old debate and I have to say I prefer the conservative take on this one. As individuals we matter, and so do our struggles. That's heroism.
12. Not only is this point nonsense in and of itself, but it is not even necessarily applicable to tea partiers. I have no idea what their sexual practices are and it doesnt really matter. I cant believe Eco is taking his arguments here. What a joke.
13. No. Libertarianism is based on the *cult* of individual rights, its aim is not to deprive people of their individual rights, but to expand them. As any real libertarian will tell you republicans and emocrats both want to deprive you of your rights - they just want to deprive you of different kinds of rights.
14. Maybe. Both sides of the political debate in this country use alot of dumbed down language (calling the opponents nazis for instance) so that even stupid people can understand the main thrust of their arguments. This is no more or less applicable to tea partiers than to any other faction.
I'm not sure that I agree with Eco that there is even such a thing as an ur-fascist, but even if there was I dont think his definitions are applicable to tea pertiers.
Gailbraithe wrote:
The only real difference (and it is a real and important difference) is that the conservative movement is, for the moment, less violent than the fascist movements of the 20th century. But the violent rhetoric ("second ammendment remedies" being my favorite euphemism for "vote for us or we'll kill you" ever) is a dangerous warning sign, and always presents the danger of inciting real violence.
But if the slew of extreme right candidates who have rode this tide of crazy to the nov. 4th election all lose (which I suspect most will), then what happens? Does the right accept that this is a democracy and they lost the middle by embracing their extreme, or are they so extreme that they believe their own rhetoric and attack the Tyrant Obama and his Imperial Death Democrats to Save The Republic From Itself? When they have convinced themselves that anyone opposed to their agenda is a traitor to America, and that they are the only Real Americans, what happens if they lose?
You sound pretty convinced of the same point. Presumably if the tea partiers are nazis all good americans should oppose them. With force if we have to. Your rhetoric leads directly to violence and that's why I think it's my obligation, as someone who *does* believe in democratic government and the possibility of *reasoned discourse* to oppose it. I dont like Palin or that crowd either, but calling them nazis is wrong both morally and factually.
Gailbraithe wrote:
In 1994 the right whipped its extreme base up into a frothing hysteria to take down Bill Clinton, and they rode that wave of anger and rage they stirred up to electoral victory. And then, in 1995, Timothy McVeigh struck a blow for 2nd Amendment rights and a smaller, less intrusive government when he blew up a bomb and killed 450 of his fellow Americans. We've had a dozen attempted and/or successful terroristic attacks from the right in the last two years. How many of them did we hear about in the news? How many of them were properly identified as right wing terrorism?
well we lost alot more people on 9/11. By your reasoning what are we to think of all muslims? You need to stop lumping everyone together in the same group. Tim McVeigh was one crazy person. Most people who share his politics do not blow up buildings and do not advocate violence to get their point across, just as most followers of mohammed do not advocate suicide attacks on America.
Gailbraithe wrote:
I mean seriously, there are people in this country right now running for positions in government that believe that we should have internment camps for Muslims. You may find it hard to believe that fascism could exist in America, but all the conditions for it are ripe. The worst part, in my feeling about it, is that you can't even have a rational discussion about it because simply pointing out that what the right is currently preaching is totally fascism is considered "insulting" or "Godwin's Law." And it's a horrible social no-no to insult the thin-skinned conservatives. They demand appeasement, and insist that no one call them by name...
If those people start winning elections and writing laws then we'll talk about violently opposing them. You're jumping at shadows on the political fringes. If you believe in democratic government, as you say, then you ought to trust the rationality of the average voter and of the system to prevent those people from getting into power.
In short you need to calm down or else you'll turn into one of them.
AF
Tyyr wrote:Given that we're talking about the Tea Party I suppose it was inevitable that someone would Godwin's Law this thing pretty fast. I expected a little build up though rather than one person just leaping for that comparison.
Hey man, wild slander is the cornerstone of our great political system.
They're going to vote in droves compared to the younger more liberal crowd so firing them up is a great way to get votes if you're conservative. I know some tea party members, they're not that crazy in normal conversation but bring up anything political get ready for a rant about whatever hot button issue that's popular. The only solution is to nod and turn the topic to something else.
sexiest_hero wrote:It started well enough, a grass roots party that caught wildfire and stopped the democrats cold. It became the new buzz word and the place everybody wanted to run and kiss butt. Then thins went sour. Here are the reasons I think that happened.
The Tea Party was never a grass-roots movement. Pure astroturf, the entire movement was initially funded by the Koch brothers, who own the second largest corporation in the world. These are some of the richest and most powerful men in the world, and they are huge financiers of the libertarian movement, helped finace the anti-health care astroturfing effort, and are major funders of the right wing noise machine. Basically their goal is to destroy the government and reduce the greater mass of Americans to impoverished serfs without any legal recourse against the economic power of the elites. And if not for Fox News relentlessly promoting the Tea Party events, they would have already disappeared.
For a real grassroots movement, you need to look at the left. Detroit recently hosted a socialist national forum drew 15,000 people (to Detroit), and that was without any corporate sponsorship and without any mainstream media coverage at all. Not even MSNBC, supposedly the Fox of the left, reported the event.
The Tea Party's real problem is that it is nascent fascist movement. There is literally no difference between the Tea Party and the Nazi Party in 1932. They are the exact same thing: Aggressive right-wing movements funded by wealthy elites, whose beliefs are primarily a grab bag of nonsense and insanity all predicated on excessive amounts of hate and fear. The Tea Party is basically a bunch of idiots and suckers who have bought into the right wing's nonsensical beliefs that a lack of constraint on economic power is somehow equatable to freedom-for-all, and that socialists and progressives are the enemy.
Which is hilarious, since its the leftists (the real leftists, the ones that aren't allowed on television and are completely ignored by the mainstream media) that have all the ideas that would get us out of our current mess, and even give the conservatives the smaller government and lower taxes they claim to crave. But if those leftist's ideas were embraced, it would ruin men like the Koch brothers, so the elites that push the right-wing agenda spend millions to rally useful idiots to their causes. Hence, tea parties.
I hate to say it, but you sound like a leftish version of the tea party. I think that point of view is paranoid in the extreme. Many people in the tea party might indeed be racist, but it isn't a publicly espoused position. Antisemitism was apparently a fundamental, though certainly not the only fundamental, philosophy from the very beginning of National Socialism in Germany. I might disagree with them, but to make a blanket statement that everyone involved is either an "idiot" or a "wealthy elite" is untrue, dismissive, and unnecessary.
Think for a moment about what you typed. This is a more condensed version of what you said. Words demarked by * are words of yours that I have replaced with words that are not specific to any one group.
The *opposition* is a nascent *totalitarian* movement.
The *opposition* is composed entirely of dupes controlled by a small, shadowy, wealthy elite. You're one or the other.
There is no difference between *the opposition* and * Nazis or communists*.
If it wasn't for a *news agency* relentlessly promoting *the opposition* would have disappeared, because there is *opposition* bias in the news.
The real * wing of a particular party or ideology* aren't allowed on television because of bias.
Does that sounds familiar from somewhere? That is exactly what you said as well.
It's hard to build a political movement without political homogeny. The tea party has no real common platform on any issue and is primarilly a rhetorical and hyperbolic response to economic hardships and liberal leadership. It's conservative crackpots and the ill educated standing up for "their rights". As a lowest common denominator collection of reactionaries it's been exploited to it's core by basically everyone trying to catch a quick buck or grab some power. It deserves it though, just as it deserves to factionalize and start disemboweling the conservative movement by pulling the rug out from under its base.
It's the logical conclusion of right wing reactionary yellow journalism when combined with an economic crisis. Murdoch must be so proud.
ShumaGorath wrote:It's hard to build a political movement without political homogeny. The tea party has no real common platform on any issue and is primarilly a rhetorical and hyperbolic response to economic hardships and liberal leadership. It's conservative crackpots and the ill educated standing up for "their rights". As a lowest common denominator collection of reactionaries it's been exploited to it's core by basically everyone trying to catch a quick buck or grab some power. It deserves it though, just as it deserves to factionalize and start disemboweling the conservative movement by pulling the rug out from under its base.
It's the logical conclusion of right wing reactionary yellow journalism when combined with an economic crisis. Murdoch must be so proud.
I disagree that the tea party platform is "conservative", in the purest sense.
Gailbraithe wrote:
The Tea Party was never a grass-roots movement. Pure astroturf, the entire movement was initially funded by the Koch brothers, who own the second largest corporation in the world.
You've already assumed that there was something to fund; implying that the movement existed prior to the intervention of the Koch brothers. A movement does not cease to be grassroots simply because funding for it comes from above (communities often contain people of widely varying income; notably the Obama campaign, which was heavily predicated on grassroots action, would not be considered grassroots by your apparent definition.
Gailbraithe wrote:
And if not for Fox News relentlessly promoting the Tea Party events, they would have already disappeared.
Have you done any research to support this? Comparative studies regarding similar movements in similar, or differing political situation? Do you have any regression data regarding Tea Party support over time; accounting for variables like Fox News coverage, corporate funding, etc?
This got Godwin'd 8 posts in? That's gotta be some kind of record...
Didn't you know that only leftist movements are grassroots, because only Democrats have the cognitive capacity for critical thought? Conservative organizations are made up of brainwashed sheep that only show up because Glenn Beck told them to. /sarcasm
I think the problem that the Tea Party has is that not many of the rank and file have any idea what they're yammering about. Particularly on when it comes to comparing today's Tax rates with those of when say, God-King Ronald Reagan was in office.
Wait....Hitler drank tea ?! Well, he can't have been all bad then....
And if not for Fox News relentlessly promoting the Tea Party events, they would have already disappeared.
Hmmm... well.. maybe it wouldn't have reached the stage it has-- publicity is, obviously a great boon for any movement, but do you not think, at the very least ( and even if you disagree with the view) the party must represent X % of people and would therefore have reformed in some manner ? You seem to be portraying it almost as an entirely media/Fox driven or created entity and I don't quite see how you can claim that.
ShumaGorath wrote:It's hard to build a political movement without political homogeny. The tea party has no real common platform on any issue and is primarilly a rhetorical and hyperbolic response to economic hardships and liberal leadership. It's conservative crackpots and the ill educated standing up for "their rights". As a lowest common denominator collection of reactionaries it's been exploited to it's core by basically everyone trying to catch a quick buck or grab some power. It deserves it though, just as it deserves to factionalize and start disemboweling the conservative movement by pulling the rug out from under its base.
It's the logical conclusion of right wing reactionary yellow journalism when combined with an economic crisis. Murdoch must be so proud.
I disagree that the tea party platform is "conservative", in the purest sense.
I started that paragraph by stating that they have no cohesive platform. It is composed of people that are largely conservative, it is held aloft by conservative shock jocks, it is praised by conservative media, and it's given lip service by conservative politicians. It's conservative, it's just stupid and aimless as well.
xxBlazinGhostxx wrote:Honestly, Hitler's paintings were good, why he wasn't accepted into that art school no one knows why exactly.
He was not a super painter, but a quite talented architectural artist. Unfortunately, he decided he was a painter and that the suggestion that he go into architecture was a personal slight against him. One could argue that he had an intuitive grasp of acting. He seemed to know how to use speech and gestures to manipulate crowds, and even some people who were politically opposed to the party apparently found his speeches powerful. He was quite aware that swaying emotions was more important than what was actually said.
People have tried to psychoanalyze his inability to draw the human figure, but I think that is crap. There are a lot of people who can draw or paint "clean" lines but can't master the human figure, but don't end up committing genocide.
I know, it's very fashionable to hate on the Tea Party...
Wonderful.
What I think it comes down to is that a lot of people started looking at Bush's spending, and felt a little concerned. Then Obama came along and they started flipping out.
That's why it's mostly all conservatives, with a few "moderates" and a few "fallen Democrats." The fact is, the rate at which we're spending is concerning, and a lot of people responded to that.
Once a lot of people started responding to it, then it became a big political club, and everyone started trying to grab the handle, and ended up banging into each other, kicking it around the room, and getting confused. Some people think they've got control of the club. Other people are too far away to grab it, so they think it's stupid, or "astroturf," or "racist," or any number of other negative things, that would probably suddenly turn positive if the talking head in question thought it would serve their political ideology.
Basically the Tea Party is exactly what you get when you've got two parties that totally suck.
The reason it's mostly conservatives, is because the two parties are doing a sucky job of implementing liberal policy.
Honestly, I wouldn't liberalism so much if it were ever done at something above a remedial, idiotic level. That's why I now miss Bill Clinton. He may be left of me, but at least he's smarter than the two retards since him.
xxBlazinGhostxx wrote:And Glod claims to be taking back the civil rights movement from the left, which kind of implies it belonged to the conservative movement?
Lincoln was a Republican. Just saying.
Phryxis wrote: That's why I now miss Bill Clinton. He may be left of me, but at least he's smarter than the two retards since him.
And Glod claims to be taking back the civil rights movement from the left, which kind of implies it belonged to the conservative movement?
I don't know about the "conservative movement," but certainly the Republican party.
The Republican party was formed as an abolitionist party. It fought southern Democrats over segregation. At some point it lost that "brand" and the Democrats took it over. That, if anything, is reason enough for the way the left still idolizes JFK. LBJ was also very progressive in that respect. Those two guys are pretty much responsible for winning that issue over to the Democrats, who had pretty minimal civil rights credibility, thanks to their sourthern membership.
So, whatever. Based on what I've heard from him, I think Beck doesn't want to take it back, so much as deny the Democrats sole ownership of it.
I wish him well. It'd be wonderful if somebody could actually sell positivity on this issue. He had Alveda King on his show today, and I was impressed with how positive and accepting she is, and while he's a bit strange and always seems a little fake to me, I want him to be genuine, and I want him to succeed in bringing people together.
I'm sure everyone here would think it's all a calculated act, but whatever. I wish him the best.
xxBlazinGhostxx wrote:And Glod claims to be taking back the civil rights movement from the left, which kind of implies it belonged to the conservative movement?
Lincoln was a Republican. Just saying.
True, but I didn't use the word republican, I used the word conservative.
xxBlazinGhostxx wrote:And Glod claims to be taking back the civil rights movement from the left, which kind of implies it belonged to the conservative movement?
Lincoln was a Republican. Just saying.
True, but I didn't use the word republican, I used the word conservative.
Well... yeah... But Republicans are generally viewed as being "conservative", N'EST-CE PAS?
True, but I didn't use the word republican, I used the word conservative.
Right, which is why I said 'I don't know about the "conservative movement," but certainly the Republican party.'
I'm saying that the "conservative movement," as I assume you're using it, has only existed since the late 1970s, long after civil rights was a Democrat plank.
But I also don't know what Glenn Beck has said on this issue, if anything. If he said "conservative movement" then there you go, but for now, it's just something you said.
I was merely clarifying how it would make sense to me.
Automatically Appended Next Post: P.S. Who else is COMPLETELY stoked that Gailbraithe is back from his suspension?
Phryxis wrote:why it's mostly all conservatives, with a few "moderates" and a few "fallen Democrats." The fact is, the rate at which we're spending is concerning, and a lot of people responded to that.
It's a recession, spending is what you do in a recession. The public sector has to pick up the slack for what the private sector isn't doing. And while we're talking about "facts" the fact is that we have a Nobel Prize winning economist saying the stimulus wasn't big enough. His word means far, far more than yours.
xxBlazinGhostxx wrote:And Glod claims to be taking back the civil rights movement from the left, which kind of implies it belonged to the conservative movement?
Lincoln was a Republican. Just saying.
True, but I didn't use the word republican, I used the word conservative.
Well... yeah... But Republicans are generally viewed as being "conservative", N'EST-CE PAS?
Relevancy to anything? Up until the past few decades, the Democrats were the racist party. What's your point?
xxBlazinGhostxx wrote:And Glod claims to be taking back the civil rights movement from the left, which kind of implies it belonged to the conservative movement?
Lincoln was a Republican. Just saying.
True, but I didn't use the word republican, I used the word conservative.
Well... yeah... But Republicans are generally viewed as being "conservative", N'EST-CE PAS?
Relevancy to anything? Up until the past few decades, the Democrats were the racist party. What's your point?
I don't think any explanation of my point could be clearer than the text you already quoted.
Phryxis wrote:why it's mostly all conservatives, with a few "moderates" and a few "fallen Democrats." The fact is, the rate at which we're spending is concerning, and a lot of people responded to that.
It's a recession, spending is what you do in a recession. The public sector has to pick up the slack for what the private sector isn't doing. And while we're talking about "facts" the fact is that we have a Nobel Prize winning economist saying the stimulus wasn't big enough. His word means far, far more than yours.
Word. I love it.
The stimulus was the right thing to do.
You tea partiers just cant admit your system didnt work and papa bear govt had to come save your AF
And while we're talking about "facts" the fact is that we have a Nobel Prize winning economist saying the stimulus wasn't big enough. His word means far, far more than yours.
Wow, getting a bit testy... I guess I'm just CRAZY for suggesting that the size of our national debt, and the $300 billion plus we spend a year servicing it, is a problem.
And, when, exactly, did I say anything about the stimulus?
And while we're talking about "facts" the fact is that we have a Nobel Prize winning economist saying the stimulus wasn't big enough. His word means far, far more than yours.
Wow, getting a bit testy... I guess I'm just CRAZY for suggesting that the size of our national debt, and the $300 billion plus we spend a year servicing it, is a problem.
And, when, exactly, did I say anything about the stimulus?
You said spending, that was a huge amount of spending done under Obama. If you're not talking about the stimulus, then you're talking about something trivial.
And while we're talking about "facts" the fact is that we have a Nobel Prize winning economist saying the stimulus wasn't big enough. His word means far, far more than yours.
You speak as if the Nobel Prize somehow still has credibility
dogma wrote:It is possible to believe both that the stimulus was necessary and that the government, in general, spends too much.
I actually think it's the consensus view.
LordofHats wrote:
And while we're talking about "facts" the fact is that we have a Nobel Prize winning economist saying the stimulus wasn't big enough. His word means far, far more than yours.
You speak as if the Nobel Prize somehow still has credibility
Are you implying that they just hand it out willy nilly to anyone they happen to like at the moment? Like Mr. Obama? Balderdash!
I do like that he sent more troops to Afghanistan after that though. In your face, Sweden!
dogma wrote:It is possible to believe both that the stimulus was necessary and that the government, in general, spends too much.
I actually think it's the consensus view.
Its certainly my view.
Monster Rain wrote:
Are you implying that they just hand it out willy nilly to anyone they happen to like at the moment? Like Mr. Obama? Balderdash!
I do like that he sent more troops to Afghanistan after that though. In your face, Sweden!
To be fair, the Peace Prize has very little in common with the prizes awarded in various sciences and social sciences. The Peace Prize is basically meaningless, the others are actually quite prestigious, even if only for their incredibly high selectivity.
To be fair, the Peace Prize has very little in common with the prizes awarded in various sciences and social sciences. The Peace Prize is basically meaningless, the others are actually quite prestigious, even if only for their incredibly high selectivity.
To be fair, the Peace Prize has very little in common with the prizes awarded in various sciences and social sciences. The Peace Prize is basically meaningless, the others are actually quite prestigious, even if only for their incredibly high selectivity.
Tell that to the nobel prize in literature
Since when has literature been a science or a social science?
dogma wrote:I think the Nobel Prize in literature has significance.
Yeah. Its nice when the judges win the prize
I just don't consider any of the Nobel Prizes to have any real meaning. The people who win them always seem to win them because judges agree with what they say, not because of any achievement worthy of praise. If it only happened once or twice I wouldn't really care, but it happens almost all the time. The prize in literature is probably even more tainted by bias than the Peace prize. It's not just an appeal to authority it's an appeal to an obviously biased authority to claim that we should listen to someone because they got a nobel prize.
LordofHats wrote:
I just don't consider any of the Nobel Prizes to have any real meaning. The people who win them always seem to win them because judges agree with what they say, not because of any achievement worthy of praise.
Name an award (athletic championships, and highest score titles don't count) that isn't like that.
LordofHats wrote:
If it only happened once or twice I wouldn't really care, but it happens almost all the time. The prize in literature is probably even more tainted by bias than the Peace prize. It's not just an appeal to authority it's an appeal to an obviously biased authority to claim that we should listen to someone because they got a nobel prize.
All awards are appeals to authority, and all authorities are biased when they are forced to make judgments because judgment is inherently biased.
I think the point of that guy winning a nobel prize in economics... isnt that he's infallible.... but that he probably knows alot more about economics than anyone posting here does. It's a fair point.
I can't stand it when guys who get all their facts from fox news and glenn beck feel like they're entitled to debate economics with a PhD. Its like barging into an MDs office and telling him hes practicing medicine in a bad way, and when he asks you what your own credentials are, all you can say is "uhhh.... I watched this show on the learning channel."
AF
AbaddonFidelis wrote:I think the point of that guy winning a nobel prize in economics... isnt that he's infallible.... but that he probably knows alot more about economics than anyone posting here does. It's a fair point.
I can't stand it when guys who get all their facts from fox news and glenn beck feel like they're entitled to debate economics with a PhD. Its like barging into an MDs office and telling him hes practicing medicine in a bad way, and when he asks you what your own credentials are, all you can say is "uhhh.... I watched this show on the learning channel."
AF
I mean, I'm an academic, and while I find it annoying when laypeople try to argue with me regarding those things that I study, I also think that its important to remember that no one is infallible. A PhD is nice, sure, but it doesn't meant that all of the holder's opinions are interesting, or even rational.
agree. It just means that the guy who doesnt have the training isnt entitled to speak to the PhD holder on equal terms when it comes to the PhD holders area of study. the PhD guy could still be wrong. Its more about respect than anything else. If someone has the training and you dont you ought to defer to them in that area.
I tend to listen to people who are educated over those who are not within my fields of interest. I'm not an academic, I like working with my hands.
Beyond attempting to pay attention to information from more informed sources, I also tend to listen to people that actually make sense. I don't care if you can't explain yourself. The 'experts' of any given field tend to have a great deal of political skills, at least those concerning personal relationships. If something sounds strange, I will usually regard it as strange until I have looked further into it myself (if that is even possible concerning the subject), or heard several reasoned and understandable arguments backing it up with the same points. Doesn't mean whatever talks the most wins, more that I will probably listen a whole lot more if it is illustrated very clearly and intelligently, no matter who is saying it.
Currently I'm working towards my PhD in political science, but I also do a lot of work in philosophy (primarily logic), and neuroscience.
Sort of a weird combination, but I'm investigating the implications of ternary logic and neural workspace theory for social science as a whole, and international relations specifically, so there is at least a bit of an explanation.
Yeah, that's the right field. Right now philosophy of mind and neuroscience are closely linked, which is why there is a sort of philosophical argument going on in that article. Its an interesting field not only because it deals with just about everything that is human, but because a link between the physical sciences and philosophy is bound to move the discipline towards the social sciences.
Wrexasaur wrote:
There is other stuff talking about global workspace theory, is it the same thing? Kind of interesting, think you could explain a little bit?
Yeah, its the same thing. The specific name varies by author, but the core concepts are essentially the same.
It will take me a long time to fully explain, but the basic idea is that stimuli are brought together in the titular 'workspace' in order to assemble a mental artifact. In essence, the physical stimuli absorbed by the physical processes of the brain are processed in a single part of the cortex; giving rise to what we nominally refer to as the mind. That's not a very explanatory statement to anyone, but it does appear that it is generally correct given our present view (used literally to regard brain scans) of the brain.
Phryxis wrote:why it's mostly all conservatives, with a few "moderates" and a few "fallen Democrats." The fact is, the rate at which we're spending is concerning, and a lot of people responded to that.
It's a recession, spending is what you do in a recession. The public sector has to pick up the slack for what the private sector isn't doing. And while we're talking about "facts" the fact is that we have a Nobel Prize winning economist saying the stimulus wasn't big enough. His word means far, far more than yours.
1. A Nobel Prize is awarded for a particular piece of work. Krugman's was awarded for his work in international trade, not in stimulus policy. His opinion of Obama's stimulus was never considered by the Nobel judges, and the prize therefore doesn't act as any guarantee of Krugman's work on the subject.
2. Krugman's a Keynesian. He supports Keynesian stimulus spending. Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek, Nobel Prize winners themselves, were both staunch critics of Keynes. Friedman would no doubt have been highly critical of Krugman's stimulus plan, and Hayek opposed stimulus as a matter of principle.
dogma wrote:Yeah, its the same thing. The specific name varies by author, but the core concepts are essentially the same.
It will take me a long time to fully explain, but the basic idea is that stimuli are brought together in the titular 'workspace' in order to assemble a mental artifact. In essence, the physical stimuli absorbed by the physical processes of the brain are processed in a single part of the cortex; giving rise to what we nominally refer to as the mind. That's not a very explanatory statement to anyone, but it does appear that it is generally correct given our present view (used literally to regard brain scans) of the brain.
That is pretty cool.
I bet my processing unit looks a lot like this. Like a badass.
My head is in a jar inside my head or something.
Do you get to study brain scans and things along those lines? Maybe trying to connect brain activity to calculable responses in a social environment? I will forever think of you as a platypus in a lab-coat, which is really what you should change your avatar to. Alternatively a bionic platypus, much like this.
Wrexasaur wrote:
Do you get to study brain scans and things along those lines? Maybe trying to connect brain activity to calculable responses in a social environment? I will forever think of you as a platypus in a lab-coat, which is really what you should change your avatar to. Alternatively a bionic platypus, much like this.
I do indeed, or I did before I moved away from a solid neuroscience department. But yeah, you basically have the right idea regading what my sort of neuroscience does.
Also, my platypus is bionic, however the one you have supplied is superior to it.
xxBlazinGhostxx wrote:And Glod claims to be taking back the civil rights movement from the left, which kind of implies it belonged to the conservative movement?
Lincoln was a Republican. Just saying.
True, but I didn't use the word republican, I used the word conservative.
Well... yeah... But Republicans are generally viewed as being "conservative", N'EST-CE PAS?
They are now, but 150 years ago things were different. The Republican Party was more left wing then the Democrats in those days, in terms of its stance on slavery. Of course the entire social landscape was very different in those days, so modern terms like left and right wing are little use in describing it.
AbaddonFidelis wrote:I think the point of that guy winning a nobel prize in economics... isnt that he's infallible.... but that he probably knows alot more about economics than anyone posting here does. It's a fair point.
I can't stand it when guys who get all their facts from fox news and glenn beck feel like they're entitled to debate economics with a PhD. Its like barging into an MDs office and telling him hes practicing medicine in a bad way, and when he asks you what your own credentials are, all you can say is "uhhh.... I watched this show on the learning channel."
AF
I understand that point of view, but I think you're showing an example of someone without qualifications in the field making a *uninformed* statement. I believe that if someone can back up what they're saying then it is potentially valid regardless of their education. I think the difference is that someone with a postgraduate education has some unique qualifications in a specific area. Certainly, someone without those years of specific education is probably going to be subject to more scrutiny, but there is no reason they can't have a valid opinion.
Another thing I encounter that bothers me is that some people will see a M.D. or a PhD on a book and just assume that it is correct and good advice, and if you point out inconsitencies, well, you just don't have that M.D. Unfortunately, a minority of people with those qualifications will publish their own theories or ideas in the popular sphere even when it is not consistent with what the professional community in that field has concluded. At least in the sciences, the consensus of the published literature trumps an individual PhD any day. It doesn't mean they're wrong, but the onus is on the individual to prove his point when going against the established point of view.
Gailbraithe wrote:
Fascism doesn't require antisemitism. Islamaphobia, homophobia, any kind of fear of an other is all that is necessary for fascism.
you didnt say fascists. you said nazis.
I said both actually. I said they were a nascent fascist movement, and I made an analogy between the Nazi party of 1932 (before they took control of the government) and the current Tea Party movement.
You sound pretty convinced of the same point. Presumably if the tea partiers are nazis all good americans should oppose them. With force if we have to. Your rhetoric leads directly to violence and that's why I think it's my obligation, as someone who *does* believe in democratic government and the possibility of *reasoned discourse* to oppose it. I dont like Palin or that crowd either, but calling them nazis is wrong both morally and factually.
I have never made any claims that the Tea Party should be opposed by force. You are simply making things up when you claim that my rhetoric leads directly to violence. I do think that Americans should oppose fascism, but I don't think violence is necessary. It seems far more important to me that we simply call a spade a spade.
I can see these people gaining power, forcing through an agenda of massive spending cuts that cripple the government, leading to an explosion in poverty and crime, leading to the imposition of martial law, suspension of elections, and the end of democracy in America. I can see that because many of the "intellectuals" of the libertarian movement have suggested it as the only way of effecting the changes that "must" happen to "fix" the economy, and because there are people in the movement -- like the Dominionists -- who see democracy as evil and ungodly.
If those people start winning elections and writing laws then we'll talk about violently opposing them. You're jumping at shadows on the political fringes. If you believe in democratic government, as you say, then you ought to trust the rationality of the average voter and of the system to prevent those people from getting into power.
I have no interest in violently opposing anyone, that's your deal. I just think it's reasonable to say the modern American conservative movement is fascist.
dogma wrote:Currently I'm working towards my PhD in political science, but I also do a lot of work in philosophy (primarily logic), and neuroscience.
Sort of a weird combination, but I'm investigating the implications of ternary logic and neural workspace theory for social science as a whole, and international relations specifically, so there is at least a bit of an explanation.
sounds pretty interesting....
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grignard wrote:
I understand that point of view, but I think you're showing an example of someone without qualifications in the field making a *uninformed* statement. I believe that if someone can back up what they're saying then it is potentially valid regardless of their education. I think the difference is that someone with a postgraduate education has some unique qualifications in a specific area. Certainly, someone without those years of specific education is probably going to be subject to more scrutiny, but there is no reason they can't have a valid opinion.
Sure they can have a valid opinion. But when the chips are down you go with the guy whose devoted his life to studying the subject. He can be wrong. The guy without that training can be right. I'm not saying it's a sure thing. It just makes sense to ask, when someone starts opining on a complex subject like the modern economy "what are your qualifications?" If they havent got any, then why should anyone listen to them and not the guy who has done the years and years of training?
Grignard wrote:
Another thing I encounter that bothers me is that some people will see a M.D. or a PhD on a book and just assume that it is correct and good advice, and if you point out inconsitencies, well, you just don't have that M.D. Unfortunately, a minority of people with those qualifications will publish their own theories or ideas in the popular sphere even when it is not consistent with what the professional community in that field has concluded. At least in the sciences, the consensus of the published literature trumps an individual PhD any day. It doesn't mean they're wrong, but the onus is on the individual to prove his point when going against the established point of view.
Yes its the professional consensus that mattes more than the opinion of any one scholar. I agree.
AF
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gailbraithe wrote:
I have never made any claims that the Tea Party should be opposed by force...I don't think violence is necessary.
well I'm relieved to see that even you don't take this nazi idea seriously. Really.
Gailbraithe wrote:
I can see these people gaining power, forcing through an agenda of massive spending cuts that cripple the government, leading to an explosion in poverty and crime, leading to the imposition of martial law, suspension of elections, and the end of democracy in America. I can see that because many of the "intellectuals" of the libertarian movement have suggested it as the only way of effecting the changes that "must" happen to "fix" the economy, and because there are people in the movement -- like the Dominionists -- who see democracy as evil and ungodly.
The libertarians arent trying to end democracy in America. What are you even talking about? Some obscure far right theologian opining that democracy is against the word of God isnt a threat to democracy - its free speech. He can say whatever he wants. He just cant *act* on it.
Gailbraithe wrote:I have no interest in violently opposing anyone, that's your deal. I just think it's reasonable to say the modern American conservative movement is fascist.
Are we talking about conservatives or libertarians? They're not really the same thing. Anyway I read Eco's article and I answered it point by point so if you think it's reasonable to call conservatives fascists then I think its reasonable for you to back that up.
AF
dogma wrote:Currently I'm working towards my PhD in political science, but I also do a lot of work in philosophy (primarily logic), and neuroscience.
Sort of a weird combination, but I'm investigating the implications of ternary logic and neural workspace theory for social science as a whole, and international relations specifically, so there is at least a bit of an explanation.
sounds pretty interesting....
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grignard wrote:
I understand that point of view, but I think you're showing an example of someone without qualifications in the field making a *uninformed* statement. I believe that if someone can back up what they're saying then it is potentially valid regardless of their education. I think the difference is that someone with a postgraduate education has some unique qualifications in a specific area. Certainly, someone without those years of specific education is probably going to be subject to more scrutiny, but there is no reason they can't have a valid opinion.
Well, all I can say about that is in my experience many of these academics can't actually *do* anything at all. When the instruments aren't cooperating and the world isn't perfect, it is the people who actually, you know, *work* in the field that get science done. Thirty more hours and a thesis doesn't necessarily impress me. Not only is the literature more important than some individual's paper, ultimately these theories are meaningless without the empirical data to back it up.
I have always strongly suspected that academia has no small amount of self perpetuating elitism built into it. I think everyone who really thinks about it knows that Glen Beck doesn't know anything about finance, but I don't think someone in a field should be ignored simply because they haven't studied some specific aspect of it obsesively. Dr. Atkins was undoubtedly a good physician, but that doesn't mean his diet has any scientific validity.
I love proving people wrong when they're wrong and they think they're right because of this. I've done it more than once.
Gailbraithe wrote:
I have never made any claims that the Tea Party should be opposed by force. You are simply making things up when you claim that my rhetoric leads directly to violence.
No, that's called making an inference, and given your vehemence it seems like a justified move.
Gailbraithe wrote:
I can see these people gaining power, forcing through an agenda of massive spending cuts that cripple the government, leading to an explosion in poverty and crime, leading to the imposition of martial law, suspension of elections, and the end of democracy in America.
Whoa there slippery slope!
Gailbraithe wrote:
I can see that because many of the "intellectuals" of the libertarian movement have suggested it as the only way of effecting the changes that "must" happen to "fix" the economy, and because there are people in the movement -- like the Dominionists -- who see democracy as evil and ungodly.
Please, name one libertarian intellectual.
Gailbraithe wrote:
...and I made an analogy between the Nazi party of 1932 (before they took control of the government) and the current Tea Party movement.
Gailbraithe wrote:There is literally no difference between the Tea Party and the Nazi Party in 1932.
That's not an analogy, that's a direct statement of equivalence.
Isn't it amusing that Gailbraithe's description of the Tea Party's motives are the exact same as Glenn Beck's description of the Liberals? Apparently every political party is only 1 or 2 degrees removed from the Nazis.
Monster Rain wrote:Isn't it amusing that Gailbraithe's description of the Tea Party's motives are the exact same as Glenn Beck's description of the Liberals? Apparently every political party is only 1 or 2 degrees removed from the Nazis.
Politics: Never will you find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.
Yes for the most part they as a whole are certainly shades of the same. They espouse various things to gain the support of us lesser life forms, but ultimately they are all serving their own artificially created reality of self-benefit and privilege.
I think politics gets a bad rap. In my experience its no better or worse than any other part of life. Self-interest has a way of making people behave stupidly from an outer examination.
Monster Rain wrote:Isn't it amusing that Gailbraithe's description of the Tea Party's motives are the exact same as Glenn Beck's description of the Liberals? Apparently every political party is only 1 or 2 degrees removed from the Nazis.
When you are describing extremists, or people you regard as extremists, that seems to be the situation. You aren't describing a specific group of people, you are describing a totem for hate and derision, in order to create a shorthand label to smear people who disagree with you.
Neither the Tea Party nor the Liberals are a political organisation in the sense that the Democrats and Republicans are. I don't think Liberals are even an identifiable movement like Tea Party. They are just a "Reds under the bed" bogeyman got up by extreme right wingers.
Individuals who might self-identify with these movements often have conflicting ideas and aspirations. Many Tea Party supporters favour the idea of a free market, but oppose the movement of manufacturing jobs to China through globalisation, which is clearly a consequence of a free market. At the same time as supporting the idea of small government and personal freedom, they want a lot of government control over private lives in areas such as sex, drugs, and religion.
Monster Rain wrote:Isn't it amusing that Gailbraithe's description of the Tea Party's motives are the exact same as Glenn Beck's description of the Liberals? Apparently every political party is only 1 or 2 degrees removed from the Nazis.
When you are describing extremists, or people you regard as extremists, that seems to be the situation. You aren't describing a specific group of people, you are describing a totem for hate and derision, in order to create a shorthand label to smear people who disagree with you.
Neither the Tea Party nor the Liberals are a political organisation in the sense that the Democrats and Republicans are. I don't think Liberals are even an identifiable movement like Tea Party. They are just a "Reds under the bed" bogeyman got up by extreme right wingers.
Individuals who might self-identify with these movements often have conflicting ideas and aspirations. Many Tea Party supporters favour the idea of a free market, but oppose the movement of manufacturing jobs to China through globalisation, which is clearly a consequence of a free market. At the same time as supporting the idea of small government and personal freedom, they want a lot of government control over private lives in areas such as sex, drugs, and religion.
There are fringe liberal groups that could be compared, at least in an operational sense, to the Tea Party.
My use of the term "Liberals" was just to point out who a right-wing commentator would be railing against.
A quick Google makes it appear to be a single issue pressure group.
One wonders how a movement aimed at reducing the government activity of war is regarded as Liberal. It might be considered a right wing idea -- cutting back government spending and interference in the free market. (As I understand it, "Liberal" is US right-wing tag meaning dangerously left-wing.)
The American conservative, and libertarian, movements are characterized not by a desire to reduce government activity, but redirect it. Well, at least the realistic components of said movements are like that, there are certainly individuals that act as though massive spending cuts could occur tomorrow.
As I understand it, "Liberal" is US right-wing tag meaning dangerously left-wing.
Yes, and please don't mock our pain. We have thoroughly screwed up our own political language, and this s really where it starts. "Liberal" basically means "libertarian," but because we're rhetorical giants over here, we decided to make it a slanderous epithet meaning "the exact opposite of a libertarian." It wasn't done out of irony either, they just decided to use the word completely incorrectly.
I just think it's reasonable to say the modern American conservative movement is fascist.
You think it's reasonable to say a lot of things that are unreasonable. You also think it's reasonable to suggest, with no sense of irony, that we should silence Fox news and AM radio pundits as a means of preventing the spread of fascist ideas.
There's a reason that Godwin made a law (or at least the corallaries) that the first person to mention Nazis loses. It's not because Nazis are so very ICKY that mention of them is just not allowed. It's not because mentioning Nazis is so bitingly accurate and fundamentally true, that the speaker is cheating by being so incredibly right, and thus has to lose.
The reason is because mentioning the Nazis is invariably wrong, idiotic and done by a ridiculous ideologue with no idea of what he speaks.
The Tea Party is not the Nazis, it's not analogous to the Nazis, it doesn't even hint at the Nazis. The same is true of the American left, the Democrats, the Republicans, etc.
They're not like the Nazis.
Now, to be fair to my past comments on this issue, I do have to admit that I see a greater degree of authoritarianism in the American left than in the American right. It's a fairly minor distinction, both sides are excessively authoritarian in my mind, but the desire to legislate and expand government is more present on the left than on the right.
So, since authoritarianism is core to Fascism and Naziism, I'd say the American left is "more similar." But not really. They're more similar to Nazis in the same way that between a kangaroo and a koala, the kangaroo is more like a tyrannosaur.
Honestly, Gailbraithe old buddy, do you not understand that the stuff you say is total fringe, ultra-left conspiracy talk? Even if it IS correct, why do you so blithely demand that we all stop being so foolish and listen to you? Is that the sort of credibility you think a community college degree affords?
US Left Wing Socially liberal.
Economically authoritarian.
Politically liberal except when it suits them.
Right wing compared to mainstream UK parties.
US Right Wing Socially authoritarian.
Economically liberal.
Politically authoritarian except when it suits them.
Right wing compared to mainstream UK parties.
Politically liberal except when it suits them.
Right wing compared to mainstream UK parties.
I'd slightly modify these...
I've said in the past, one reason I lean Republican is that I prefer their lies to the Democrats lies. The Republicans at least know I want to hear that they're not going to be authoritarians, the Democrats generally just assure you it's for your own good.
So, I'd reverse your "except when it suits them" bits.
Also, I think the current crop of Democrats running things are very far left as far as American politics go. Certainly not left for Europe, but they're far enough left that I think there may be a few British parties that are similar or even right of them.
Unfortunately I don't know enough about British politics to say anything useful. That's why my language was so feebly uncertain. "I think there may."
There are a couple factors for why I speculate that way...
First, I think the Obama administration is WAY to the left of where they appear to be. They're operating in political reality, and they can't simply do whatever they want to. I think if Obama had his way, we'd recenter around Europe, perhaps even to the left of it. He can't just do that, though, so he gets what he can. This may be irrelevant, a politicians is really more about what he does than what he thinks, but I think it's a real phenomenon, and I think it's worth considering.
Second, during the healthcare debate, I was constantly seeing comparisons to British systems which gave me the impression that the US is more "left" and England is more "right" than most people presume, and fairly "right" as Europe goes. A lot of times I'd see somebody suggest something less "radical" than Obama's suggestions, and then somebody else would say "oh, you mean like England does it now?" If "compromise" positions here are aligned with current policy in England, then we're not that far out of aligned.
Also, there are a lot of places where the US and England are not that far out of sync. In social programs, I think we are, but in terms of financial regulation, I think we're much more similar. But again, no expertise in this, I just find that economic controls are inherantly global and so they tend to be more consistent, whereas social welfare programs are very regional, and thus more available for variations.
You tell me, are the American Democrats to the right of the British Conservative party?
Hard to say - the tories have drifted towards the centre on SOME social issues, so in that respect definitely. They've also embarked upon the largest series of cuts undertaken for quite some time, in a period when Obama is briefing against such action. I'd go with a tentative yes.
Albatross wrote:Hard to say - the tories have drifted towards the centre on SOME social issues, so in that respect definitely. They've also embarked upon the largest series of cuts undertaken for quite some time, in a period when Obama is briefing against such action. I'd go with a tentative yes.
No I wouldn't. Economically they are to the left of the Conservative party of course. Dolt!
Gailbraithe wrote:I have never made any claims that the Tea Party should be opposed by force...I don't think violence is necessary.
well I'm relieved to see that even you don't take this nazi idea seriously. Really.
You're putting words in my mouth and deliberately interpretting my comments in nonsensical ways. It is entirely possible to both consider the nascent fascism of the American right a serious issue and be committed to finding non-violent solutions.
The libertarians arent trying to end democracy in America. What are you even talking about? Some obscure far right theologian opining that democracy is against the word of God isnt a threat to democracy - its free speech. He can say whatever he wants. He just cant *act* on it.
Actually, almost all hardcore libertarians are anti-democracy. The University of Nevada's Hans Hoppe, a prominent libertarian thinker, wrote Democracy: The God The Failed, in which he argues that democracy is a failure because the people can vote to violate the supposed property rights of the propertied class. He even goes so far as to say that in a true libertarian society that all of the "socialists" (which he defines as anyone who thinks that human rights trump property rights) and homosexuals will have to be killed.
This is the fatal flaw of libertarianism: In order for libertarianism to work, there needs to be some means of preventing the greater mass of people from electing anti-libertarian candidates. There has to be a means to prevent socialists and leftists from gaining office -- and of course, if libertarians are able to enact their policies changes, that will lead to a lot of socialists getting elected. This is why libertarians are often heard denigrating democracy, calling it "two wolves and lamb deciding what is for dinner" and other such nonsense. Libertarianism is deeply terrified of democracy, as history has proven that when working people are enfranchised -- when they can vote in a meaningful way -- they vote for their own selfish interests -- choosing clean air and water, safe working conditions, public education, etc. -- which results in regulations on capitalists. Thus for libertarianism to succeed, it must inevitabely destroy democracy.
The sort of policy envisioned by libertarians is so harmful to working people that it cannot survive democracy. This is why the only place in the world where libertarian economic policies have ever been fully enacted is Chile under the murderous regime of Pinochet.
Are we talking about conservatives or libertarians? They're not really the same thing. Anyway I read Eco's article and I answered it point by point so if you think it's reasonable to call conservatives fascists then I think its reasonable for you to back that up.
Your point-by-point answer was more or less completely daft, and demonstrated severe reading comprehension problems and a total lack of logic or reason.
Gailbraithe wrote:
I can see these people gaining power, forcing through an agenda of massive spending cuts that cripple the government, leading to an explosion in poverty and crime, leading to the imposition of martial law, suspension of elections, and the end of democracy in America.
Whoa there slippery slope!
That is hardly a slippery slope argument.
I have a degree in criminal justice, and that is my area of expertise. I have seen numerous studies that demonstrate that spending on poverty relief is the single greatest crime deterrent there is. It is estimated that every dollar spent on the so-called "nanny state" translates into a savings of ten dollars in law enforcement costs. What this means is that if we remove the social programs that prevent tens of millions of Americans from slipping in poverty, there will be a massive explosion in crime. That is not a slippery slope, that is an easily predicted consequence of the policies supported by the right.
If there is a massive explosion in crime as a result of right wing policies, that will translate into a complete rejection of those policies by the next election cycle. Thus the only way that the right will be able to enact such policies and maintain power is by preventing elections. A massive explosion in crime -- particularly the riots that will occur as millions are forced onto the streets and made to starve -- creates the necessary conditions to justify the creation of a police state. Furthermore, by removing the ability to address social unrest through programs like subsidized housing, food stamps and welfare, the right leaves itself only the option to use the brutal force of the police to control society -- a police state.
This is exactly what happened in Chile when Pinochet implemented the exact same economic policies supported by the modern right.
Please, name one libertarian intellectual.
Fredrich Hayek, Hans Hoppe, Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard. That's four.
Gailbraithe wrote:...and I made an analogy between the Nazi party of 1932 (before they took control of the government) and the current Tea Party movement.
Gailbraithe wrote:There is literally no difference between the Tea Party and the Nazi Party in 1932.
That's not an analogy, that's a direct statement of equivalence.
Oh fine, you got me. I was being hyperbolic. Now, please, address an actual point, instead of mindlessly harping on a poor choice of wording.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Phryxis wrote:Yes, and please don't mock our pain. We have thoroughly screwed up our own political language, and this s really where it starts. "Liberal" basically means "libertarian," but because we're rhetorical giants over here, we decided to make it a slanderous epithet meaning "the exact opposite of a libertarian." It wasn't done out of irony either, they just decided to use the word completely incorrectly.
What makes this comment really funny is that libertarian originally meant the exact same thing as anarchist and socialist. Originally all three words were used to describe the same political movement, which today is the radical antiauthoritarian left. But in the 1970s, the term libertarian was co-opted by crypto-fascists to refer to a system of government in which property rights trump human rights, a system in which everyone without property is born into a state of eternal slavery to those with property.
You think it's reasonable to say a lot of things that are unreasonable. You also think it's reasonable to suggest, with no sense of irony, that we should silence Fox news and AM radio pundits as a means of preventing the spread of fascist ideas.
Except I never said anything of the sort, and that is a bold-faced lie. You, sir, are a liar.
There's a reason that Godwin made a law (or at least the corallaries) that the first person to mention Nazis loses. It's not because Nazis are so very ICKY that mention of them is just not allowed. It's not because mentioning Nazis is so bitingly accurate and fundamentally true, that the speaker is cheating by being so incredibly right, and thus has to lose.
Godwin's Law does not imply in any way that the first person to mention Nazis loses. Godwin's Law states that as any discussion on the internet grows in length, the probability that someone will accuse their opponent of being a Nazi approaches one to one. Godwin's Law is meant to be a joke, and is properly invoked when the argument is on trivial issues -- like vegans calling meat-eaters Nazis. When one is discussing extreme right-wing political movements, comparisons to famous fascist movements are not only likely, they are appropriate.
The reason is because mentioning the Nazis is invariably wrong, idiotic and done by a ridiculous ideologue with no idea of what he speaks.
And I'll continue to maintain my position that the best thing we can do to ensure the rise of fascism is to make it impossible to address the rise of fascism.
The Tea Party is not the Nazis, it's not analogous to the Nazis, it doesn't even hint at the Nazis. The same is true of the American left, the Democrats, the Republicans, etc.
They're not like the Nazis.
Sure they are. The American right's entire political platform is based on hatred, and the target of that hatred is the exact same target as the Nazis: foreigners, homosexuals, socialists, union members, liberals, leftists, the avant-garde, the entertainment industry, etc.
The first thing all fascists do is attempt to divide a nation against itself. To turn white against black, Christian against Muslim, straight against gay, rural against urban, etc. And that is what the modern right is dedicate to: a politics of division and hatred, all masking a political agenda that is designed to only benefit a very small, very wealthy elite.
Don't be a sucker.
Now, to be fair to my past comments on this issue, I do have to admit that I see a greater degree of authoritarianism in the American left than in the American right. It's a fairly minor distinction, both sides are excessively authoritarian in my mind, but the desire to legislate and expand government is more present on the left than on the right.
Which only demonstrates that you know absolutely nothing about the left in America.
Gailbraithe wrote:
That is hardly a slippery slope argument.
Uh, yes it is.
X ->Y, Y ->Z, Z ->W...
You must prove each interceding variable, or its an abuse of the transitive property.
Gailbraithe wrote:
I have a degree in criminal justice, and that is my area of expertise. I have seen numerous studies that demonstrate that spending on poverty relief is the single greatest crime deterrent there is. It is estimated that every dollar spent on the so-called "nanny state" translates into a savings of ten dollars in law enforcement costs. What this means is that if we remove the social programs that prevent tens of millions of Americans from slipping in poverty, there will be a massive explosion in crime. That is not a slippery slope, that is an easily predicted consequence of the policies supported by the right.
No, that's not a slippery slope, but its also not the argument that I referenced.
Gailbraithe wrote:
If there is a massive explosion in crime as a result of right wing policies, that will translate into a complete rejection of those policies by the next election cycle. Thus the only way that the right will be able to enact such policies and maintain power is by preventing elections.
So many errors. First, you can't use your classification to explain the classification of others. Second, you are making an economic inference without proof. Third, you are making a psychological inference without proof. I could drag this into semantic matters, but I won't do that if you don't make me.
Gailbraithe wrote:
A massive explosion in crime -- particularly the riots that will occur as millions are forced onto the streets and made to starve -- creates the necessary conditions to justify the creation of a police state.
It does? Cannot the state also allow its own failure?
Gailbraithe wrote:
Furthermore, by removing the ability to address social unrest through programs like subsidized housing, food stamps and welfare, the right leaves itself only the option to use the brutal force of the police to control society -- a police state.
Or non-brutal force, jailing and what-not, the sort of thing we see now.
Gailbraithe wrote:
This is exactly what happened in Chile when Pinochet implemented the exact same economic policies supported by the modern right.
Nope, sorry, try again. Pinochet has very little in common with the American Right. You may be able to illustrate a comparison, but simply stating it as fact is laughable.
Gailbraithe wrote:
Fredrich Hayek, Hans Hoppe, Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard. That's four.
None of them are libertarians. You might try referncing political theorists if you wish to reference libertarians; notably:
Rothbard: critical of corporatism.
Hayek: favored tyranny of the majority
Mises: critical of consumerism.
Hoppe: criticizes democracy, especially American democracy.
It seems your definition needs revision.
Gailbraithe wrote:
Oh fine, you got me. I was being hyperbolic. Now, please, address an actual point, instead of mindlessly harping on a poor choice of wording.
No, you weren't being hyperbolic, you made an error. There is a clear difference.
Nazis were, after all, National *Socialists*. If the tea party has any common platform at all, it certainly isn't socialism.
Sorry dude, they're just not much like Nazis or Fascists. They have to potential to harness angry populism, sure, but they're not just not Nazis, no matter how much you want them to be.
Gailbraithe wrote:You're putting words in my mouth and deliberately interpretting my comments in nonsensical ways. It is entirely possible to both consider the nascent fascism of the American right a serious issue and be committed to finding non-violent solutions.
True. However, you your self started the round of suspicion when you wrote: "Does the right accept that this is a democracy and they lost the middle by embracing their extreme, or are they so extreme that they believe their own rhetoric and attack the Tyrant Obama and his Imperial Death Democrats to Save The Republic From Itself? When they have convinced themselves that anyone opposed to their agenda is a traitor to America, and that they are the only Real Americans, what happens if they lose?"
Your point here is basically that while the vast majority of the Tea Partiers may claim to "be committed to finding non-violent solutions", this sort of pacifism is inconsistent with their extremist rhetoric. However, we now you have you declaring that the movement is analogous to one that murdered millions of people. How come you suddenly deserve the benefit of the doubt?
Actually, almost all hardcore libertarians are anti-democracy. The University of Nevada's Hans Hoppe, a prominent libertarian thinker, wrote Democracy: The God The Failed, in which he argues that democracy is a failure because the people can vote to violate the supposed property rights of the propertied class. He even goes so far as to say that in a true libertarian society that all of the "socialists" (which he defines as anyone who thinks that human rights trump property rights) and homosexuals will have to be killed.
While this is interesting, I don't see its relation to the Tea Party. I doubt more than a handful of the people who comprise it have read Hans Hoppe. The Tea Party is pretty consistently pro-democracy (they continuously point out that the job of congress is to serve We The People, and so forth), although this is probably fed by an overly-optimistic view of how widespread support for their movement actually is.
But in the 1970s, the term libertarian was co-opted by crypto-fascists
Really? Libertarians are now "crypto-fascists"? You're like von Mises with socialism.
Gailbraithe wrote:
That is hardly a slippery slope argument.
Uh, yes it is.
X ->Y, Y ->Z, Z ->W...
You must prove each interceding variable, or its an abuse of the transitive property.
Okay...
Gailbraithe wrote:
I have a degree in criminal justice, and that is my area of expertise. I have seen numerous studies that demonstrate that spending on poverty relief is the single greatest crime deterrent there is. It is estimated that every dollar spent on the so-called "nanny state" translates into a savings of ten dollars in law enforcement costs. What this means is that if we remove the social programs that prevent tens of millions of Americans from slipping in poverty, there will be a massive explosion in crime. That is not a slippery slope, that is an easily predicted consequence of the policies supported by the right.
No, that's not a slippery slope, but its also not the argument that I referenced.
...but then when I do that, you claim it's not the argument I was making.
So when I give a more detailed explanation of the argument, you claim its no longer the same argument.
Gailbraithe wrote:If there is a massive explosion in crime as a result of right wing policies, that will translate into a complete rejection of those policies by the next election cycle. Thus the only way that the right will be able to enact such policies and maintain power is by preventing elections.
So many errors. First, you can't use your classification to explain the classification of others. Second, you are making an economic inference without proof. Third, you are making a psychological inference without proof. I could drag this into semantic matters, but I won't do that if you don't make me.
I have no idea what your first point means.
As for your second point, the only "economic inference" I am making is that cutting spending on social programs -- which is a frequently stated, defining point of the right's agenda -- will increase crime. This is a point so transparently obvious and so easily proven that it hardly demands proving. It is a simple fact that in the absence of a social safety network to provide for the of people cut off from subsistence farming (i.e. urban populations) and employment opportunities, crime will flourish. It is necessarily so, because while I'm generally loathe to cite human nature arguments, the fact remains that humans are adaptive survivors, and its well-established that when forced to choose between obeying rules and total deprivation, humans overwhelmingly choose life over law.
As for your third point, I am not making any psychological inferences. I'm simply citing a political reality: If a party takes power and enacts policies that result in a collapse of society into deprivation, that party will not survive the next round of elections if those elections are remotely fair. If ultra-right conservatives got into power and criminalized abortion, ended welfare, ended unemployment, eradicated OSHA, the EPA and the Department of Education, privatized social security, and all these other ultra-right positions (which have made their way into dozens of state party platforms) the inevitable consequences of such policies would be disastrous from the perspective of the 80% of people who just barely get by thanks to the massive government subsidization of poverty in America. And historically when working people have been the victims of aggressive class warfare by elites, they have turned to the left for remedy.
Gailbraithe wrote:A massive explosion in crime -- particularly the riots that will occur as millions are forced onto the streets and made to starve -- creates the necessary conditions to justify the creation of a police state.
It does? Cannot the state also allow its own failure?
I suppose it's theoretically possible that, given a massive explosion in crime, domestic terrorism, and general anarchy the state could decide to just pack it in and give up, allowing America to dissolve into the worst kind of nightmare of anarchy imaginable, but I don't consider that very likely. The apparatus of a police state already exists, all that is necessary is the will to use it and a justification for the middle class -- much as 9/11 allowed the Bush administration to engage in some pretty serious violations of civil liberties with only the mildest of rebuke. Anyways, ff the poor are rioting for food, the people whom the state actually benefits will demand that police use deadly force to control riots before they'll acquiesce to letting the poor simply raid the supermarkets and tear down the apparatuses of oppression.
Gailbraithe wrote:Furthermore, by removing the ability to address social unrest through programs like subsidized housing, food stamps and welfare, the right leaves itself only the option to use the brutal force of the police to control society -- a police state.
Or non-brutal force, jailing and what-not, the sort of thing we see now.
Yeah, that's what I was talking about when I said "the brutal force of the police." Jailing and what-not. There is really no such thing as "non-brutal force" when you're talking about using the police to oppress the poor, hungry and desperate masses.
Gailbraithe wrote:This is exactly what happened in Chile when Pinochet implemented the exact same economic policies supported by the modern right.
Nope, sorry, try again. Pinochet has very little in common with the American Right. You may be able to illustrate a comparison, but simply stating it as fact is laughable.
The economic policies advocated by the right, Austrian Economics from the "Austrian School" exemplified by the Chicago Boys, were put in place by Pinochet after the '73 coup. Modern tea party manifestos call for the adoption of Austrian economics. In Chile the imposition of these polices lead to a surge in revolutionary leftism and years of violent state oppression, there is absolutely no reason to believe that the effect in America would be any different.
Gailbraithe wrote:
Fredrich Hayek, Hans Hoppe, Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard. That's four.
None of them are libertarians. You might try referncing political theorists if you wish to reference libertarians; notably:
Are you effing kidding me? That's your counter-argument, a completely bold faced, easily dispelled lie? Just to give one quick example of how ridiculous you are, here's the wikipedia page for libertarianism. On the sidebar it has links to many other articles, divided by article type. Here's the list of articles linked to under the subject people, as in libertarian people. I'll highlight the important ones:
Joseph Déjacque · Milton Friedman · Murray Rothbard · Robert Nozick · Albert Jay Nock · Noam Chomsky · Hans-Hermann Hoppe · Murray Bookchin · Ludwig von Mises · Henry George · Henry David Thoreau · Kevin Carson · Roderick T. Long · Gary Chartier · Walter Block · Frank Chodorov · Friedrich Hayek · Brian Doherty · Nick Gillespie · Ed Crane · Sheldon Richman · Steven Horwitz · Llewellyn Rockwell · Carl Menger · Joseph Schumpeter · Ron Paul · Hans Sennholz · Leonard Read · Leo Tolstoy
Oh hey, there's all four of the dudes I mentioned. Including Murray Rothbard. Who is that? Only the man often credited as being the founder of modern libertarianism, the mentor of Ron Paul, and the man who defined the core values of libertarianism for a generation.
How am I supposed to take you seriously when you say garbage like this? You're being totally ridiculous.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Orkeosaurus wrote:
Gailbraithe wrote:You're putting words in my mouth and deliberately interpretting my comments in nonsensical ways. It is entirely possible to both consider the nascent fascism of the American right a serious issue and be committed to finding non-violent solutions.
True. However, you your self started the round of suspicion when you wrote: "Does the right accept that this is a democracy and they lost the middle by embracing their extreme, or are they so extreme that they believe their own rhetoric and attack the Tyrant Obama and his Imperial Death Democrats to Save The Republic From Itself? When they have convinced themselves that anyone opposed to their agenda is a traitor to America, and that they are the only Real Americans, what happens if they lose?"
Your point here is basically that while the vast majority of the Tea Partiers may claim to "be committed to finding non-violent solutions", this sort of pacifism is inconsistent with their extremist rhetoric. However, we now you have you declaring that the movement is analogous to one that murdered millions of people. How come you suddenly deserve the benefit of the doubt?
I'm sorry, I don't see why I need the benefit of the doubt. There is no logical justification for the leap you are making. That I recognize the right has succumbed to fascism doesn't in any way imply that I think we should kill them. That's just silly. You are, without any cause, denying any possibility that I could be a rational person and that there can be a middle ground.
While this is interesting, I don't see its relation to the Tea Party. I doubt more than a handful of the people who comprise it have read Hans Hoppe. The Tea Party is pretty consistently pro-democracy (they continuously point out that the job of congress is to serve We The People, and so forth), although this is probably fed by an overly-optimistic view of how widespread support for their movement actually is.
Except the Tea Party lives in complete denial of the fact that the government does serve the people...who won the elections. Because the Tea Party considers itself the real America, and thus the only people who actually matter. The Tea Party only believes in democracy when they win the elections.
It's relation to the tea party is this: The Tea Party is fundamentally libertarian in its economic view, having started in part in the Ron Paul movement, and embraces Austrian economics. Hans Hoppe is a professor of economics (University of Nevada) who subscribes to Austrian economics, and his book specifically deals with the problem of asserting libertarian economic policies in a free society, wherin "socialists" are allowed to vote. And his conclusion, following logically from Von Mises and Hayeck, is that democracy is counter to his ideal of liberty.
But his ideal of liberty is literally a world where every square inch of land is owned by a capitalist, and that all of the people who are forced to live on that land should be entirely subject to his law as he declares it, as his property is his right -- and he makes it explicitly clear that the property rights of landlords includes the right to execute renters on their property for the crime of being homosexual. It is literal serfdom, with fuedal lords and knights replaced by property owners and their private security forces.
But in the 1970s, the term libertarian was co-opted by crypto-fascists
Really? Libertarians are now "crypto-fascists"? You're like von Mises with socialism.
Not all libertarians are crypto-fascists, but libertarians like Hayeck and Hoppe certainly are, as are the fantastists of the heroic individualist like Ayn Rand. Rand Paul, the would-be senator from Kentucky, is a crypto-fascist. Bill Maher, also a libertarian, is not a crypto-fascist. He's just a schmuck.
Gailbraithe wrote:I'm sorry, I don't see why I need the benefit of the doubt. There is no logical justification for the leap you are making. That I recognize the right has succumbed to fascism doesn't in any way imply that I think we should kill them. That's just silly. You are, without any cause, denying any possibility that I could be a rational person and that there can be a middle ground.
I'm not actually saying that I think you're a violent person; the thrust of my point is that your appraisal of the Tea Party is unfair as well. There has been very little violence associated with them, given the size of the movement, and the economic conditions that triggered it.
To sum it up, extremist rhetoric isn't a sign of impending violence. You aren't likely to take up arms against the people you say you perceive to proto-Nazis, and the Tea Party is unlikely to take up arms against the people they perceive to be Marxist saboteurs of the American government.
Except the Tea Party lives in complete denial of the fact that the government does serve the people...who won the elections. Because the Tea Party considers itself the real America, and thus the only people who actually matter. The Tea Party only believes in democracy when they win the elections.
No, as far as I can tell there's no real contest over Obama's election. There was that one complaint about Black Panthers intimidating voters, and there's a lot of complaining about Obama being a demagogue who bedazzled everyone with his talk about "change", but there isn't any equivalent to, say, the liberal declaration that Bush's first term was stolen. The Tea Party still remembers how unpopular Bush was in his second term, and they'll begrudging accept that Obama won fairly.
Now, if Obama wins in 2012, things are going to get interesting. The Tea Party doesn't believe that "real Americans" didn't vote for Obama, but they do believe, to a large extent, that "real Americans" are tired of him now.
It's relation to the tea party is this: The Tea Party is fundamentally libertarian in its economic view, having started in part in the Ron Paul movement, and embraces Austrian economics. Hans Hoppe is a professor of economics (University of Nevada) who subscribes to Austrian economics, and his book specifically deals with the problem of asserting libertarian economic policies in a free society, wherin "socialists" are allowed to vote. And his conclusion, following logically from Von Mises and Hayeck, is that democracy is counter to his ideal of liberty.
Hayek and von Mises were of the opinion that all forms of governance ran counter to the ideal of liberty; however, I don't remember either of supporting any form of governance in preference to democracy. My understanding of von Mises was that he begrudgingly decided that a democracy was the best form of government due to its stability. However, I haven't read much of either of their works first hand.
In any case, I still think you're mistaken in the belief that the Tea Party is paying close attention to the views of the Austrian school. Even Ron Paul, who is something of a "moderate" as far as people associated with the Austrians go, is starting lose control of the party to the likes of Palin and Beck. The opinions of someone like Hans Hoppe are simply not entering into their worldview, except in a few rare cases. The Tea Party is far more concerned with constitutionalism, and American exceptionality, both concepts that go hand in hand with support of democratic republicanism and separation of powers.
But his ideal of liberty is literally a world where every square inch of land is owned by a capitalist, and that all of the people who are forced to live on that land should be entirely subject to his law as he declares it, as his property is his right -- and he makes it explicitly clear that the property rights of landlords includes the right to execute renters on their property for the crime of being homosexual. It is literal serfdom, with fuedal lords and knights replaced by property owners and their private security forces.
This problem may be the death knell of (right) libertarian philosophy. However, this is all, once again, going over the heads of most people in the Tea Party (and of mainstream politics in general).
Not all libertarians are crypto-fascists, but libertarians like Hayeck and Hoppe certainly are, as are the fantastists of the heroic individualist like Ayn Rand. Rand Paul, the would-be senator from Kentucky, is a crypto-fascist. Bill Maher, also a libertarian, is not a crypto-fascist. He's just a schmuck.
I'm still going to have to declare this proposition to be ridiculous. While I don't fully agree with Eco's concept of "ur-fascism", the first two points traits he describes (traditionalism and irrationalism) are certainly core concepts in any look at fascism. However, I don't see any strong traditionalist elements in Austrian or Objectivist theory. To the contrary, laissez-faire economics are frequently criticised for their lack of real world testing. Austrian or Objectivist theory cannot be considered "irrationalist" by any stretch of the imagination, they're among the most rationalist theories around (Objectivism and Praxeology both purport to be derived entirely by deductive reason, with no further observation required besides "a man acts" and "A=A").
Well, it's a photoshop... So, to quote Albatross, "The answer is yes and no."
Libertarianism is deeply terrified of democracy
It's funny you state it this way, but also entirely congruent with your bizzare "everyone that's not me is evil" ideology.
I prefer to say that libertarianism is unsustainable, for the reasons you outline, and thus can never really exist on any large scale. It depends on people remaining committed to its ideals, and if enough people decide to dispense with it, it has no means to defend itself.
In this respect it's the exact opposite of what you pretend it is, but it's pretty typical of you to identify things you don't agree with as the most devolved, corrupted and bastardized mutation of the thing in question.
The sad news for you, is that similar corruptions of your beloved leftist/Marxist ideals are all of the worst mass murdering dictatorships in history. And they're also very real, and very material, unlike the obscure lunatics you pretend represent all ideologies besides your own.
How many libertarians do you think have even HEARD of Hans Hoppe?
And how many Marxists do you think have heard of Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot?
Stop playing the exaggerated boogeyman game. It's not one that you have any chance of winning.
I have a degree in criminal justice, and that is my area of expertise.
DUDE. Enough with the credentialism. You have a criminal justice degree from a community college. Pulling rank on people is obnoxious and petty. Doing it when you don't even have any rank to begin with adds "pitiable" to the list of adjectives.
What this means is that if we remove the social programs that prevent tens of millions of Americans from slipping in poverty, there will be a massive explosion in crime.
I wasn't aware that people were calling for and end to the "social programs that prevent tens of millions of Americans from slipping in poverty." Did I miss the Republican "drive people into poverty" plank?
Nobody has this intention. The rhetoric actually tends to focus on waste and corruption. For example, why are we ALL paying for ACORN to go around registering Democrat voters? Why is federal money going to bail out unions, when the unions then use their money to help Democrats get elected?
This is exactly what happened in Chile when Pinochet implemented the exact same economic policies supported by the modern right.
Nice! That's what a two year community college degree buys you... The wit and wisdom to circumvent the common man's Hitler reference, and replace it with a Pinochet reference.
I can't wait for the Republicans to start disappearing people. I hope they start in the Northwest.
Except I never said anything of the sort, and that is a bold-faced lie. You, sir, are a liar.
And you, sir, are a TREASURE!
Godwin's Law does not imply in any way that the first person to mention Nazis loses.
I wonder why I mentioned the corrollaries then?
But, thanks for reminding us that you've already lost the debate. We know.
To turn white against black
And who is doing that more aggressively than the likes of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson? It's an industry for them, a powerbase. The Americ right wishes racism would just go away and stop being an issue. It's the American left, the race-baiters like Sharpton and Jackson, that seek to maintain it as an issue.
Phryxis wrote:It's funny you state it this way, but also entirely congruent with your bizzare "everyone that's not me is evil" ideology.
That's ridiculous. I don't think the moderate liberal supporters of capitalism that make up the bulk of the Democratic mainstream are evil, even though I fundamentally disagree with their position. This is nothing more than character assassination. And unlike Godwin's Law, which is a joke, the argument ad hominiem is an actual fallacy that actually does invalidate the argument.
In this respect it's the exact opposite of what you pretend it is, but it's pretty typical of you to identify things you don't agree with as the most devolved, corrupted and bastardized mutation of the thing in question.
So, I take it character assassination is the sum total of your counter-argument?
The sad news for you, is that similar corruptions of your beloved leftist/Marxist ideals are all of the worst mass murdering dictatorships in history. And they're also very real, and very material, unlike the obscure lunatics you pretend represent all ideologies besides your own.
Except that I'm not a Marxist in any sense...
How many libertarians do you think have even HEARD of Hans Hoppe?
I don't know. The more knowledgeable ones I've encountered all know of him.
And how many Marxists do you think have heard of Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot?
I don't know many Marxists.
What this means is that if we remove the social programs that prevent tens of millions of Americans from slipping in poverty, there will be a massive explosion in crime.
I wasn't aware that people were calling for and end to the "social programs that prevent tens of millions of Americans from slipping in poverty." Did I miss the Republican "drive people into poverty" plank?
Nobody has this intention. The rhetoric actually tends to focus on waste and corruption.
Dude, please. Reality. I pay attention to the news, I see the things the GOP says about unemployment and entitlements. I know who Grover Norquist is and how much influence his group has on the right's economic agenda. I've seen Paul Ryan's Roadmap for American Ruin. You can keep deluding yourself that the actual conservative movement isn't on record, but it only makes me think you're a disingenuous waste of time. Which is becoming painfully obvious.
For example, why are we ALL paying for ACORN to go around registering Democrat voters?
We aren't. The government provides funding for community voter registration drives, to help ensure that everyone who wants to register knows how to both register and how to have their vote counted. ACORN is one of many groups that helps the government administer these programs. If ACORN registers more Democrats than Republicans, then it is almost certainly because ACORN is situtated primarily in poor, urban minority communities...which trend strongly Democratic. But we are also paying for numerous right-wing organizations to do the same thing.
Also, this is not an example of waste or corruption.
Why is federal money going to bail out unions, when the unions then use their money to help Democrats get elected?
What federal money goes to unions?
Godwin's Law does not imply in any way that the first person to mention Nazis loses.
I wonder why I mentioned the corrollaries then?
I wonder why too, since internet jokes are not logical fallacies.
But, thanks for reminding us that you've already lost the debate. We know.
This isn't a debate. You have no real argument. Your entire fake argument consists of pretending an internet meme (Godwin's Law) is a logical fallacy (it is not), and attacking my character. You can't win a debate that way.
To turn white against black
And who is doing that more aggressively than the likes of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson? It's an industry for them, a powerbase. The Americ right wishes racism would just go away and stop being an issue. It's the American left, the race-baiters like Sharpton and Jackson, that seek to maintain it as an issue.
Right, because racism doesn't actually exist. If "race-baiters" like Sharpton and Jackson would just stop pointing out all the racism in American society, then it would just Magically Disappear. Dude, I know right-wingers want to stick their heads in the sand about race, but *gasp* its still an issue in America, and it won't go away by pretending it doesn't exist.
So, I take it character assassination is the sum total of your counter-argument?
What you perceive as "character assassination" is just me telling you how you come across. If it's not an accurate representation of your beliefs, then you might want to learn how to express yourself better.
For example, you seem incapable of discussing the American right with any degree of moderation or even sanity. They're Nazis, they're like Pinochet, they're racists, they're haters...
The reality is that they're just people, American people, who have a slightly different ideology from you.
I'm not trying to assassinate your character. You're doing that to yourself. I'm simply telling you that you're doing it.
I know who Grover Norquist is and how much influence his group has on the right's economic agenda. I've seen Paul Ryan's Roadmap for American Ruin.
Yeah, and there are also people on the left, closer to real power than they should be, who have left-equivalent ideas. There are crazies out there. The right doesn't have a monopoly on them, and they don't speak for the right, just as Bill Ayers doesn't speak for the left.
I wonder why too, since internet jokes are not logical fallacies.
Who said it was a logical fallacy?
I was quite clear that I was referring to a corrallary of the law, and you missed it. Realizing that you messed up, you tried to pretend I was saying something I wasn't...
I never said you had violated a rule of logic. What I'm saying is that you're not just wrong, you're doing it in a very cliched fashion.
If "race-baiters" like Sharpton and Jackson would just stop pointing out all the racism in American society, then it would just Magically Disappear.
Racism has almost totally disappeared in America on the interpersonal level. There has never been a population in human history more concerned with "not being racist" than white Americans.
Now, that's not to say that there are not racist white Americans. That's not to say there aren't unintentionally racist white Americans. But, in a huge majoriy, white Americans feel it's a VERY BAD thing to be racist.
I also don't mean to imply that racism doesn't have a legacy that goes on today. The negative factors impacting the black community (for example) are very real. They aren't the product of anybody's specific intentions, though. Nobody (relevant) is planning and designing the oppression of the American black man. Instead, this oppression comes from circumstance, from established mechanisms, from demographic realities, etc. etc. etc
There's no question at all that more needs to be done...
But Jackson and Sharpton aren't living in that reality. It's hard to get people angry at nebulous concepts and tangled networks of social interactions. So Sharpton and Jackson keep it personal. They want every black person to walk out of their house and see white people that hate them, and are out to get them. In that sort of a world, you really NEED a guy like Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton to get your back. There are REAL enemies out there.
I was listening to Alveda King talk the other day, and the difference between her and the race-baiters is just ludicrous. It's same as the difference between them and her uncle.
I've watched King's speech (yesterday was the anniversary) and it was powerful in a way that nothing is today. But it was also about acceptance, tolerance and cooperation. The dream that King spoke of is a dream that puts Sharpton and Jackson out of a job.
The reason black people still struggle in our society is that, since MLK, they have had to suffer under the likes of Sharpton, Jackson and Farrakhan. They have no leadership, only exploiters.
Gailbraithe wrote:
So when I give a more detailed explanation of the argument, you claim its no longer the same argument.
Yes. If you were at all familiar with academic argument, you would know this.
Gailbraithe wrote:
I have no idea what your first point means.
I expected as much. Sad, really.
Gailbraithe wrote:
As for your second point, the only "economic inference" I am making is that cutting spending on social programs -- which is a frequently stated, defining point of the right's agenda -- will increase crime.
Again, there is a lot wrong with this. Even at he most fundamental level, you must support the relationship you are describing.
Gailbraithe wrote:
This is a point so transparently obvious and so easily proven that it hardly demands proving. It is a simple fact that in the absence of a social safety network to provide for the of people cut off from subsistence farming (i.e. urban populations) and employment opportunities, crime will flourish.
No, that's not a simple fact. That may be what they teach in Community College, but no one who is at all versed in the subject cares about that.
Gailbraithe wrote:
It is necessarily so, because while I'm generally loathe to cite human nature arguments, the fact remains that humans are adaptive survivors, and its well-established that when forced to choose between obeying rules and total deprivation, humans overwhelmingly choose life over law.
Has it now? What studies can you cite?
Gailbraithe wrote:
I suppose it's theoretically possible that, given a massive explosion in crime, domestic terrorism, and general anarchy the state could decide to just pack it in and give up, allowing America to dissolve into the worst kind of nightmare of anarchy imaginable, but I don't consider that very likely. The apparatus of a police state already exists, all that is necessary is the will to use it and a justification for the middle class -- much as 9/11 allowed the Bush administration to engage in some pretty serious violations of civil liberties with only the mildest of rebuke. Anyways, ff the poor are rioting for food, the people whom the state actually benefits will demand that police use deadly force to control riots before they'll acquiesce to letting the poor simply raid the supermarkets and tear down the apparatuses of oppression.
Why? Sorry, but social science does not allow that sort of correlation.
Gailbraithe wrote:
Yeah, that's what I was talking about when I said "the brutal force of the police." Jailing and what-not. There is really no such thing as "non-brutal force" when you're talking about using the police to oppress the poor, hungry and desperate masses.
Ok, exemplify it.
Gailbraithe wrote:
The economic policies advocated by the right, Austrian Economics from the "Austrian School" exemplified by the Chicago Boys, were put in place by Pinochet after the '73 coup. Modern tea party manifestos call for the adoption of Austrian economics. In Chile the imposition of these polices lead to a surge in revolutionary leftism and years of violent state oppression, there is absolutely no reason to believe that the effect in America would be any different.
Evidence?
Gailbraithe wrote:
Are you effing kidding me? That's your counter-argument, a completely bold faced, easily dispelled lie? Just to give one quick example of how ridiculous you are, here's the wikipedia page for libertarianism. On the sidebar it has links to many other articles, divided by article type. Here's the list of articles linked to under the subject people, as in libertarian people. I'll highlight the important ones:
Joseph Déjacque · Milton Friedman · Murray Rothbard · Robert Nozick · Albert Jay Nock · Noam Chomsky · Hans-Hermann Hoppe · Murray Bookchin · Ludwig von Mises · Henry George · Henry David Thoreau · Kevin Carson · Roderick T. Long · Gary Chartier · Walter Block · Frank Chodorov · Friedrich Hayek · Brian Doherty · Nick Gillespie · Ed Crane · Sheldon Richman · Steven Horwitz · Llewellyn Rockwell · Carl Menger · Joseph Schumpeter · Ron Paul · Hans Sennholz · Leonard Read · Leo Tolstoy
Oh hey, there's all four of the dudes I mentioned. Including Murray Rothbard. Who is that? Only the man often credited as being the founder of modern libertarianism, the mentor of Ron Paul, and the man who defined the core values of libertarianism for a generation.
How am I supposed to take you seriously when you say garbage like this? You're being totally ridiculous.
How am I supposed to take you seriously when yo rely on Wikipedia?
Seriously, none of the above are ideologically consistent with modern libertarianism. You might know that if you had actually read anticking regarding politics.
Gailbraithe wrote:
So when I give a more detailed explanation of the argument, you claim its no longer the same argument.
Yes. If you were at all familiar with academic argument, you would know this.
This is just ridiculous bullying tactics that you are engaging in because you have no actual point.
Gailbraithe wrote:
I have no idea what your first point means.
I expected as much. Sad, really.
More of the same.
Since your arguments are bereft of any sort of evidence, your arguments are always abusive, and you engage constantly in disingenuous, irrational argument -- like insisting Murray Rothbard isn't a libertarian intellectual -- I'm done wasting my time engaging with you. Welcome to my killfile, dogma.
Gailbraithe wrote:
This is just ridiculous bullying tactics that you are engaging in because you have no actual point.
Are you really going to engage me regarding the ethics of debate, CRT 'theorist'?
Gailbraithe wrote:
Welcome to my killfile, dogma.
Kill file? Are you threatening my life? I', guessing this is the last we'll be hearing from you for, at least, some time. Enjoy your self-imposed exile.
Ah, well then I have learned something. Still, Gailbraithe's arguments, being theoretical at the core, lack any sort of tacit support. As such, it is odd, and hilarious, to be criticized for positing anything that lacks evidence.
Gailbraithe wrote:...the argument ad hominiem is an actual fallacy that actually does invalidate the argument.
No, Phryxis didn't use ad hominem. It isn't ad hominem to label one's position regarding a given topic, in this case your presentation of yourself. Ad hominem involves substituting personal attacks for an argumenative premise, Phyxis hasn't done that; its simply that you are acting in that fashion.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gailbraithe wrote:
Actually, almost all hardcore libertarians are anti-democracy. The University of Nevada's Hans Hoppe, a prominent libertarian thinker, wrote Democracy: The God The Failed, in which he argues that democracy is a failure because the people can vote to violate the supposed property rights of the propertied class.
Hoppe isn't a libertarian. Really, he isn't The book your referencing is essentially Hoppe's Communist Manifesto; advocating a sort of utopia based on what he calls the natural order (basically anarcho-capitalism). This runs directly against American libertarianism which explicitly predicates itself on American political conditions; especially the Constitution.
I guess you could posit that Hoppe falls into the academic category of 'libertarian' but that isn't at all useful with respect to political commentary, nor is it useful on an academic level as the breadth of what constitutes a 'libertarian' doesn't allow one to use someone like Hoppe to characterize the whole of the theory group.
Gailbraithe wrote:
This is the fatal flaw of libertarianism: In order for libertarianism to work, there needs to be some means of preventing the greater mass of people from electing anti-libertarian candidates.
That's the nature of all forms of government when the state is predicated on a democratic process.
Gailbraithe wrote:
The sort of policy envisioned by libertarians is so harmful to working people that it cannot survive democracy. This is why the only place in the world where libertarian economic policies have ever been fully enacted is Chile under the murderous regime of Pinochet.
Pinochet wasn't a libertarian. He liberalized the economy, and downsized the state, but he also instituted a fixed exchange rate, which cuts strongly against the monetarist theory that dominated the Chicago Boys. Additionally, the economic measures instituted by Pinochet were continued and strengthened following Chile's transition to democracy, which fairly well does away with your argument that free market capitalism cannot survive contact with the electorate.
How am I supposed to take you seriously when yo rely on a Wikipedia article with warnings about accuracy at the top of the page?
Fixed that
Never touch a Wikipedia article with warnings on it. I can tell you from experience that they're usually there for a reason
Of course, I wasn't actually citing a wikipedia article. I was just showing that the wikipedia series of articles on libertarianism included every single one of the names I mentioned as important libertarians. It's easy to attack wikipedia, as dogma did, but it misses the real point: Those four men I named are all famous libertarian thinkers, who are oft-cited by other libertarian thinkers, and whose work was vital to the development of libertarianism.
And dogma's counter-argument is to say "Nuh-uh, you're stupid!" without any sort of substance to his argument. It's beyond ridiculous. I mean Murray Rothbard is called "the father of libertarianism," and is widely regarded as one of the major proponents of the modern libertarian movement. Here, this is Rothbard's biography on Mises.org, one of the most prominent libertarian sites on the web. Read through it and decide for yourself if Rothbard is fairly described a libertarian thinker.
Dogma claiming that Rothbard (or any of the men I mentioned) is not a libertarian thinker is absurdity of the highest order. It really isn't all that different than Dogma claiming that the sky is orange, cows gives gasoline and parrots rule from far Arcadia. It's pure, unadulterated nonsense.
And yet, he expects me to take him seriously. He's a complete joke. And this is how he acts in every single argument, he just sits there adopting a condescending, know-it-all attitude in which he smugly derides people for not understanding his vague and incomprehensible statements while simultaneously denying clear and evident facts of which there can be no serious denial. And he boldly and falsely misrepresents complex theories in such a way that actual communication with him is impossible (such as the ridiculous nonsense he has spouted regarding critical race theory).
He, like many right-wing psuedo-intellectuals, relies entirely on being smary and disingenuous to "win" arguments by frustrating whomever he is arguing with. He is intellectually bankrupt and completely dishonest to his core, and there is nothing to be gained at all from engaging with his ilk. He's a liar and a fraud, and that is all he is.
That's the nature of all forms of government when the state is predicated on a democratic process.
Exactly. You could have a democratic vote that decides to abolish the democratic vote.
Does that mean the democracy is anti-democratic?
Additionally, the economic measures instituted by Pinochet were continued and strengthened following Chile's transition to democracy, which fairly well does away with your argument that free market capitalism cannot survive contact with the electorate.
He also practiced disappearing, torture and general brutality. These are not tenets of libertarianism, they're tenets of dictatorship/crazy.
He is intellectually bankrupt and completely dishonest to his core, and there is nothing to be gained at all from engaging with his ilk. He's a liar and a fraud, and that is all he is.
Wow, classy. Put people on ignore, and then spend five paragraphs attacking them personally and directly.
I won't pretend I have anything but contempt for your ideology and delivery, but I can at least constrain my criticism to your ideas, to their lack of merit, and to the abrasive way you present your ideas.
You just spent five paragraphs insulting dogma personally, calling him a liar and a fool.
Good luck with this guy, Mods. Your best hope is that he discovers that we're ALL racist and puts as ALL on ignore, so we don't have to listen to him anymore.
Honestly, you can ban him now, or you can ban him after he's accused everyone here of being a racist liar. He's not going to let you off without banning him, though.
Phryxis wrote:Wow, classy. Put people on ignore, and then spend five paragraphs attacking them personally and directly.
I won't pretend I have anything but contempt for your ideology and delivery, but I can at least constrain my criticism to your ideas, to their lack of merit, and to the abrasive way you present your ideas.
You just spent five paragraphs insulting dogma personally, calling him a liar and a fool.
Good luck with this guy, Mods. Your best hope is that he discovers that we're ALL racist and puts as ALL on ignore, so we don't have to listen to him anymore.
Honestly, you can ban him now, or you can ban him after he's accused everyone here of being a racist liar. He's not going to let you off without banning him, though.
Hypocrisy, thy name is Phryxis...
Why don't you flood my inbox with some more of your hate-filled personal attacks. Because attacking my family, my painting skills, and my physical appearance all because we disagree on politics was truly, truly classy.
[quote=dogma}
Please, name one libertarian intellectual.
.
Here's three taken shamelessly from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Edward Fesser- "What Libritarianism isn't" http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/feser2.html Tibor R. Machan-Neither Left nor Right
Robert Nozick- Anarchy, State, and Utopia
(ok. idk how that works.)
