|
Hypocrisy thine internet handle is Promontorium
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 04:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 11:18 |
|
Promontorium posted:Deeper into the weeds than I even thought possible. You've completely left the land. The Catcher in the rye failed to catch you. Nothing you've written here is remotely connected to my point, nor your failure to criticize my point. You just keep introducing more and more of topics. I might be insulting, but I am abiding. I tried very hard to address every point. And rather than addressing anything you just keep going deeper. You've actually gone past parody, since I made a satirical comment about the Iroquois and then you devoted a paragraph to them. This is why every single insult directed your way was justified. When someone pointed out why your argument was trash from a dumpster, using two in-depth examples and allusions to a third, you went ahead and, instead of engaging with someone pointing out why they believe your argument to be wrong, started spitting insults like they're seeds from the watermelons you gently caress, I mean, make love to.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 04:39
|
|
|
Caros posted:Do you often agree that people have a unilateral light to violate an agreement? I have to leave right now. I want to come back to this. Someone asked me what I believe in. One thing I think fundamental to change in governance is the notion of perpetuity. I feel it is one of the most important steps to a new form of human interaction. From the old Kingdoms, to Locke, to the founding principles of America, everyone follows this idea that once you create something it's tied to the land, and the children forever, unless something amazingly drastic comes along. Why? Why must wars be fought. It's all contracts. Contracts can end. They can be renegotiated. Humans are temporary. Ideas and cultures change. Why should an institution be so cocky as to think it should take the upheaval of all of society to abolish it. I hold the individual above the state, and for that, no state should be more permanent than an individual. It's an idea, and I'd like to get into it more. I think you are a very intelligent person because I do not discuss this much, yet you picked it out of a few sentences from me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 04:41
|
|
|
Promontorium posted:It's all contracts. Contracts can end. They can be renegotiated. Humans are temporary. Ideas and cultures change. Why should an institution be so cocky as to think it should take the upheaval of all of society to abolish it. I hold the individual above the state, and for that, no state should be more permanent than an individual. It's an idea, and I'd like to get into it more. If this is the case, why is an entity like "one of the several states of the United States" worth considering as something with rights it ought to be able to exercise? Not a rhetorical question. GunnerJ fucked around with this message at 04:44 on Jan 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 04:42
|
|
|
Promontorium posted:Deeper into the weeds than I even thought possible. You've completely left the land. The Catcher in the rye failed to catch you. Nothing you've written here is remotely connected to my point, nor your failure to criticize my point. You just keep introducing more and more of topics. I might be insulting, but I am abiding. I tried very hard to address every point. And rather than addressing anything you just keep going deeper. You've actually gone past parody, since I made a satirical comment about the Iroquois and then you devoted a paragraph to them. Watch: Promontorium posted:
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 04:43
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:This is why every single insult directed your way was justified. When someone pointed out why your argument was trash from a dumpster, using two in-depth examples and allusions to a third, you went ahead and, instead of engaging with someone pointing out why they believe your argument to be wrong, started spitting insults like they're seeds from the watermelons you gently caress, I mean, make love to. No. I actually addressed them directly in detail. Then you ignored them and changed the subject while building straw man arguments. Not the same thing. But at least you're actually addressing me this time and not going off on another irrelevant tangent. I can't follow you any further. This is not to insult, it's not a "right or wrong" thing. You just want to go further into topics I do not want to discuss. But childishly insult me all you want.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 04:44
|
|
|
fade5 posted:Seriously, if you want to debate, drop the smarmy bullshit and just debate. I agree. Point made.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 04:44
|
|
|
For some reason, Promontorium, your latest posts are giving me a conspiracy theorist vibe. That is, the way you construct sentences and use metaphor is getting eerily close to nutter territory. Edit: Not that it's just conspiracy theorists, but people on the schizotypal spectrum have a way of using language that's all hosed up and weird. Edit the 2nd: Maybe you just picked up certain turns of phase from being around whackjobs. Corvinus fucked around with this message at 04:50 on Jan 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 04:44
|
|
|
Promontorium posted:But childishly insult me all you want. you're doing it again
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 04:45
|
|
Promontorium posted:No. I actually addressed them directly in detail. Then you ignored them and changed the subject while building straw man arguments. Not the same thing. But at least you're actually addressing me this time and not going off on another irrelevant tangent. I can't follow you any further. This is not to insult, it's not a "right or wrong" thing. You just want to go further into topics I do not want to discuss. But childishly insult me all you want. No, you didn't. You did not, at any point, substantively address that 1) Your conception of communism as understood by Karl Marx to be a phenomenon that had never existed previously was inaccurate, and did not address period that 2) Your conception of communism as disallowing taxation was inaccurate or 3) Your conception of communism as disallowing "fiat money" was inaccurate. You have decided to insist that these are tangents, but you, yourself, said that you wanted to discuss on the basis of communism and libertarianism both disallowing "fiat money" and taxation. Since that basis is a false one, your argument fails before it begins. Thus, you are either stupid, or intellectually too cowardly to address the thrust against the roots.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 04:53
|
|
|
Promontorium posted:Deeper into the weeds than I even thought possible. You've completely left the land. The Catcher in the rye failed to catch you. Nothing you've written here is remotely connected to my point, nor your failure to criticize my point. You just keep introducing more and more of topics. I might be insulting, but I am abiding. I tried very hard to address every point. And rather than addressing anything you just keep going deeper. You've actually gone past parody, since I made a satirical comment about the Iroquois and then you devoted a paragraph to them. So, back on topic, should the age of consent be set at thirteen, or simply be eliminated as a legal concept? Walter Block anxiously awaits your reply....
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 04:55
|
|
|
Pro-Tip: Before using a metaphor consider whether you have heard is used frequently in common use. If you have you might want to consider not using it. If you must still use it (for some reason) then for the love of god don't use it:Three posted:Deeper into the weeds than I even thought possible. You've completely left the land. The Catcher in the rye failed to catch you. Nothing you've written here is remotely connected to my point, nor your failure to criticize my point. You just keep introducing more and more of topics. I might be insulting, but I am abiding. I tried very hard to address every point. And rather than addressing anything you just keep going deeper. You've actually gone past parody, since I made a satirical comment about the Iroquois and then you devoted a paragraph to them. loving posted:This is way too into the weeds for me. I was just making a point that Marx's Communism hasn't been implemented historically. This is a fact. Times posted:Infinite feedback loop. I can see why no one wants to actually discuss ideology. You are so far into the weeds you will never surface. Rather than discussing ideas, it's round 10 of why one sentence in a post I made an hour ago isn't 100% right because I don't have Marx's library on hand (though I have most of it, and that's not enough) and even though what I wrote is factual, it's now round 3 of why I'm technically wrong because Iroquois were social people. Just saying. Promontorium posted:I have to leave right now. I want to come back to this. Someone asked me what I believe in. The problem with your argument is that what you are suggesting is either perfunctory or non-functional. Does each individual get to determine whether or not the US government can continue? Is there some sort of referendum every few years/decades/centuries in which people vote over whether or not to dissolve the sovereign nation? How would that even function. You might not like the idea that it takes massive social upheaval to change the nature of society, but I contend that the abolition of society is by definition the upheaval of all society.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 04:55
|
|
|
What the gently caress does "deeper into the reeds" even mean?
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 05:01
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:What the gently caress does "deeper into the reeds" even mean? Deeper into the weeds is like 'off the beaten track'. You're getting lost in minutia and ignoring the main argument. Basically just fishmech posting.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 05:03
|
|
|
gonna be honest i only have ever heard "into/in the weeds" working in kitchens where it means "poo poo is beyond hosed we are so fuckin busy kill me now"
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 05:04
|
|
|
Caros posted:Deeper into the weeds is like 'off the beaten track'. You're getting lost in minutia and ignoring the main argument. Basically just fishmech posting. huh, i thought he was trying to call effectronica crazy or as having incredibly fringe beliefs or something
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 05:06
|
|
|
The secession of southern states had nothing to do with individuals expressing their rights over those of the US Federal Government. Most people in the south could not vote on secession, and in several of the states the majority population was enslaved. Pro-Unionists were subjected to terror campaigns. And at the ballot box, most states managed a very small majority in favor of secession. In the end, a small, unrepresentative cadre of extremely wealthy and powerful slavers dragged countless other unwilling individuals into death and destruction. All for the glory of establishing a permanent totalitarian slave power empire. Which parts of that do you not agree with?
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 05:07
|
|
|
Grand Theft Autobot posted:The secession of southern states had nothing to do with individuals expressing their rights over those of the US Federal Government. Most people in the south could not vote on secession, and in several of the states the majority population was enslaved. Pro-Unionists were subjected to terror campaigns. And at the ballot box, most states managed a very small majority in favor of secession. I think you're underselling just how much support secession and the war had in the South among whites by quite a bit, but otherwise agree.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 05:14
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:What the gently caress does "deeper into the reeds" even mean? It's used as a no-effort, blanket dismissal. Replace it with "you're just a sheeple", use it like a broken record, and the mindset behind it becomes apparent.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 05:14
|
|
|
Promontorium posted:I have to leave right now. I want to come back to this. Someone asked me what I believe in. Hi, Promontorium. What service were you in, if you don't mind my asking? I'm an Air Force brat (father was a crew chief). Anyways, you seem (politically speaking) like a slightly younger version of myself. Anyways, let me address the bolded point. We all know about the Articles of Confederation. They were very loose, and allowed for this idea of a transient, or non-perpetual state. I may be mis-remembering, but basically under the Articles government was dissolved every time the senate ended their year or changed. We still see this attitude in today's congress, with each congress being numbered, and the fact that subsequent congresses cannot be held to maintain the promises of a previous congress (the 110th congress can't pass a law or referendum that says the 115th congress will pass a specific law, or do a specific thing - if such a bill or law were passed, the 115th congress could legally ignore it, they are not beholden to the 110th congress, even if it's mostly the same people) Note: successor congresses must still uphold laws that were passed, they're just not beholden to promises to make new laws or to allocate budgets a certain way. However, a perpetual state is a strong state, in the sense of stability and unity. If you have a federal government which allows individual territories (like the US states) to easily dissolve ties with each other, you create uncertainty, instability, and even hostility between rival territories. In effect, look at how the EU works, and how the debt crisis is being handled. The USA would not have lasted two decades before it fell apart and the British came waltzing back in to take everything back. Even now, in our modern world, to revert back to a similar system would be absolutely disastrous for us and our allies. It makes us inherently weak for the sake of preserving "state's rights", which is a nebulous idea at best, as the founding fathers felt rights belonged to people, not governments. This is why the bill of rights forbade any government within the jurisdiction of the United States from violating them. The federal government grants powers to the states, not rights. The Constitution strengthened our unity, and yes, gave strength to the federal government. Many libertarians and conservatives (I use to be one) would cry "STATISM!" at the idea of the federal government consolidating power, but that's exactly what the Constitution did. The idea of a perpetual state allows society to function, and allows people to make contracts with each other and with the government without the fear of these contracts being made null and void by fiat of a new congress coming into session. It allows our economy to run, and avoids the anarchy and chaos of a government that can't decide what it's going to be one year from the next. It also allows for major issues and legislation which may take years to craft and argue to be debated and created. Imagine what it'd be like if the Civil Rights Act was passed, and the next congress said "we didn't sign that, we're not beholden to uphold that legislation". Or if we had such a transient government that the Jim Crow south could have seceded over such a law, or that basically every state in the union could choose to ignore it. Which leads me to this: Promontorium posted:For the record I am opposed to both slavery and the Confederacy. Though not the abstract confederacy, as it fits in with minarchism. No, you don't. The Confederacy's "right to secede" was tenuous at best and based on their "right" to own slaves. If states could secede over the mere fear of a law being passed that hasn't even seen the inside of Congress, then what a weak union we are.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 05:26
|
|
|
Promontorium posted:The Catcher in the rye failed to catch you. The Catcher as Holden imagined it would be protecting children from growing up so they would never have to see the world for what it is and instead spend their time playing forever. It's fundamentally impossible. Childhood passes. His own childhood has passed. The very name is based on him mishearing the poem. Instead, the word "gently caress" is carved into the wall and someone will see it. He can't erase the all the fucks, he can't catch the children and keep them in the rye. What the hell a metaphor for the inevitability of adulthood and the passing of childish idealism has to do with anything else is beyond me. Despite Holden's best efforts, Effectronica is an adult. ...Okay?
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 05:52
|
|
|
Grand Theft Autobot posted:So, back on topic, should the age of consent be set at thirteen, or simply be eliminated as a legal concept? In the interest of honesty and reality I try to make a split between my hypothetical ideal, and the real world. In the real world, in America, we tend to ignore age of consent except in cases of great disparity of age or position (we find a 17 or even 18 year old student having sex with a teacher more reprehensible than say some random adult and a near-adult). On a list of issues, I'd put it way down. 18 is too young for some, too old for others (when they have sexually and intellectually matured enough). So it's as good a place as any. I don't really care. I think a person's rights extend from their capabilities. On a purely rational level. If someone is mentally or physically unfit, to express a certain right, then the government can't really give it to them. Children are not fit to be independent. I think one key aspect of sexuality is maturity and independence. Since it is necessary an independent act of great potential importance. It's not something a child even has a right to do. When someone is independent enough to be considered legally adults, then they should be independent enough to be having sex. There is no exact age for this time. but it's certainly in the teens for some, and maybe never for others. I would want this determination to be made by all involved parties, the individual, the parents, and the government, to the extent the government has a duty to protect the rights of its citizens, it should ensure the parents are neither over-nurturing, nor tossing a kid to the wolves so to speak. So 18 or 16 in some states I don't care. I think the individual's readiness is more important, and not that hosed pedo version where everyone is apparently asking for it. No if the person is doing their taxes they're probably in the ballpark.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 05:59
|
|
|
Orange Fluffy Sheep posted:The Catcher as Holden imagined it would be protecting children from growing up so they would never have to see the world for what it is and instead spend their time playing forever. I was looking at it from Holden's own perspective. It was a personal fantasy of his. He is tasked as the catcher of children who are playing but may fall to their death. In this instance I am imagining the catcher tasked with catching people trying to craft an argument, but the path the person is on takes him deep, deep in the tangled rye. The catcher chases, but cannot stop him from falling off the cliff, entirely departing all rational discourse.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 06:04
|
|
|
U.S. NavyYF19pilot posted:Hi, Promontorium. What service were you in, if you don't mind my asking? I'm an Air Force brat (father was a crew chief). I agree. Which is why I developed a political theory that simultaneously creates the same opportunity and security of the perpetual state, AND enables anyone within to have any laws they want for any period of time they choose. But this is very ambiguous, so I'll address your points directly. I'm all for a great central government. I'm not for an overreaching one, a corrupt one, or an unaccountable one. I get that the stability of the nation enables people to work together and make great plans. And I wish for any good state long life. But I do not agree with mandated perpetuity. I believe there must be an out. If a nation exists to preserve the rights individuals, then that nation must not put itself before the individual, should the person, or people find the nation no long adhering to its best interests. I am not speaking of anything the founders did not also agree with. I just propose a less bloody means than civil war to achieve the same end. If the Declaration of Independence had been heeded by the king, rather than a war, don't you think the founders would have preferred that? What right did they have to secede that you deny in others? Is it purely about scale of complaint? I don't want a scale so grand that citizenship is viewed as its own kind of bondage. Particularly since the world has run out of new soil. YF19pilot posted:The Confederacy's "right to secede" was tenuous at best and based on their "right" to own slaves. If states could secede over the mere fear of a law being passed that hasn't even seen the inside of Congress, then what a weak union we are. I believe in a deeper fundamental right to choose one's government. I do not believe "America" for example owns the land it operates on in perpetuity, should the people under its rule voluntarily choose to withdraw. It goes deep into the heart of private property. How private is it? Is it yours, or on loan from the state? I have no problem with the political theory of merely loaning land, but make that known. Do not say you own land, and you own yourself, but should you choose to take it somewhere out of my grasp, I'll kill you. Because that's not honest. America needs to take a long hard look at the nature of its property laws. From eminent domain, to what exactly "public property" is, to where the homeless can or should go. Many issues. They all bother me. I have no simple answer because America is very complicated. But to take it modern. I think if the people of Northern California and southern Oregon should choose to form a new state called Jefferson, civil war shouldn't be the only option, nor the absurd condition now where the offending states California and Oregon, have to sign off on it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 06:19
|
|
|
Corvinus posted:It's used as a no-effort, blanket dismissal. Replace it with "you're just a sheeple", use it like a broken record, and the mindset behind it becomes apparent. Unless I'm me, and you're a troll. In which case deeper into the weeds means something entirely different. I like this quote from an etymology website I just looked up "The metaphor here seems to be that when you wander off the beaten path, you can explore arbitrary amounts of not-very-valuable intellectual foliage (“weeds”) without getting closer to your conceptual destination.” I think that image of “wandering off the beaten path to examine interesting details along the way” is the key to this sense of “getting into the weeds.” I want to have an honest "good faith" debate. If you in good faith can go back and see me go three or four replies deep into the validity of a single sentence, and claim I'm blanket dimssing the issue and using it as a broken record, then I must admit my failing, as I will never ascribe to that ideal. How many paragraphs are YOU willing to go into to discuss a single sentence taken out of context where the person discussing it goes deeper and deeper with each reply into an entirely unrelated topic? Seriously. Any good faith at all? Think on this.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 06:26
|
|
|
Promontorium posted:For the record I am opposed to both slavery and the Confederacy. Though not the abstract confederacy, as it fits in with minarchism. Stop. Just stop. You've already made a flawed, false equivalency of anarchism and libertarianism. Jrod is not an anarchist nor is his 'tradition' anything remotely related to American Anarchism. At best its a perversion of Anarcho-capitalism, but that's not what Jrod was claiming, Jrod was claiming that Libertarianism has roots in leftist Anarchism. Anarchism and Libertarianism are different things. Libertarians co-opt actual anarchist thought and turn it into this neo-liberal menagerie of poo poo. I also, have made a take down of this thought. Did you bother to read it? No, you did not. Several of us posted about this topic this very week. Anarchism is not the complete lack of organization, but a preference for local and municipal structure as being the primary focal point of society. That is what American Anarchism is. Are there de-development and primitivist anarchists in the US? Sure, but those are the one's that are made fun of as "hey man lets all sit around and smoke weed and get rid of the State man." Also, stop worrying about the tone that other people are taking with you and start talking substance. If you just continue to bitch about tone, then it looks like you are just dodging arguments because you are unwilling to have an "intellectually honest" discussion. One can be crass and still intellectually honest and sincere in their arguments. That's actually sorta a big goon thing as I've come to learn. BaurusJA fucked around with this message at 07:46 on Jan 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 06:26
|
|
|
Promontorium posted:I was looking at it from Holden's own perspective. It was a personal fantasy of his. He is tasked as the catcher of children who are playing but may fall to their death. In this instance I am imagining the catcher tasked with catching people trying to craft an argument, but the path the person is on takes him deep, deep in the tangled rye. The catcher chases, but cannot stop him from falling off the cliff, entirely departing all rational discourse. Considering the Catcher is a fantasy of his, attempting to be the guardian of youthful innocence despite his being long gone and the inevitability of that innocence being lost, this allusion has become bad. So all discourse invariably verges towards irrational? What a great view from someone who has a stick up his rear end for rational discourse. Promontorium posted:I'm not for an overreaching one, a corrupt one, or an unaccountable one. Well no poo poo. Who the gently caress is for bad things? Yeah, I support crimes! I love crime! I'll vote for more crime and criminals! I wish someone would steal my loving TV just so I know there is one more crime in the world! I also love graft, bribery, dishonesty, and subterfuge!
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 06:30
|
|
|
Hey Promontorium, what is the point of Libertarianism if free will is false as shown by all studies of the mind?
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 06:50
|
|
|
Orange Fluffy Sheep posted:Considering the Catcher is a fantasy of his, attempting to be the guardian of youthful innocence despite his being long gone and the inevitability of that innocence being lost, this allusion has become bad. Friend have you ever googled Ron Paul
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 06:51
|
|
|
YF19pilot posted:We all know about the Articles of Confederation. They were very loose, and allowed for this idea of a transient, or non-perpetual state. I may be mis-remembering, but basically under the Articles government was dissolved every time the senate ended their year or changed. We still see this attitude in today's congress, with each congress being numbered, and the fact that subsequent congresses cannot be held to maintain the promises of a previous congress (the 110th congress can't pass a law or referendum that says the 115th congress will pass a specific law, or do a specific thing - if such a bill or law were passed, the 115th congress could legally ignore it, they are not beholden to the 110th congress, even if it's mostly the same people) Note: successor congresses must still uphold laws that were passed, they're just not beholden to promises to make new laws or to allocate budgets a certain way. The Articles of Confederation didn't really establish a "transient state." Actually one of its big flaws was how very hard it was to change its structure, requiring unanimous consent of the states. What you're describing is the fact that convened irregularly, but even between its meetings there was a committee to keep a hand on the rudder, and it wouldn't have ended its meetings according to a senate's schedule because it had no senate. It was effectively a unicameral "legislature," the Congress, but it had no executive apart from the Congress either. But a comparison to the federal government that supplanted it is also problematic because it didn't even constitute a central government at all. That's how it's often described but I think this is a bit presentist. A confederation was basically somewhere between an alliance and what the Constitution established. The EU is an apt point of comparison only on the level that the member nations of the EU retain their sovereignty; otherwise it would look nightmarish to pretty much any 1780s Americans, regardless of where they ended up standing when it came to the Constitution. At the time, people believed that the republic is an unstable form of government because it could only maintain its essential liberties by remaining "small." If it got too big (encompassed too much land, too many people, and critically too much cultural diversity and class stratification) then threats to liberty from within would arise. On the other hand, staying small meant staying weak compared to large tyrannical empires, a threat to liberty from without. Forming a confederation was a solution to this: united solely on the level of dealing with foreign policy, they could each continue to operate internally as sovereign states while not being prone to piecemeal subjection by foreign despots. (One of the most innovative federalist arguments was to turn this on its head and claim that a larger republic could be more secure from threats to liberty from within and without, and I think this was correct.) It's often said that the Articles "failed," but this is judging it by an inappropriate standard. You can't expect something that was not designed to be a central government to successfully act as a central government. As a confederation, it was capable. There are all sorts of things that people take it to task for not having been able to do, not realizing that this was a feature and not a bug. They established a confederacy because they did not want a central power that could regulate internal affairs and compel the payment of taxes, for example. The most relevant criticisms are on foreign policy, which is the major point of confederacy, but there's a few issues with the major lines of attack. For example, one thing that gets brought up is British impressment. That's odd though because that remained a problem for 23 years even after the Constitution was ratified. Another issue was that the British flaunted some stipulations of the Treaty of Paris with respect to, e.g., vacating forts. But the United States also wasn't fully adhering to the treaty. Enforcing treaty obligations is something that can be called a victory for the Constitution because successful treaties were concluded in the 1790s. Something you definitely can attribute as a success here concerns the way in which the US was not living up to its end of the bargain: it wasn't repaying its pre-war debts to Britain, which it had agreed to do, because it couldn't. The Constitution did make consolidation and payment of debt easier. Incidentally, there was no threat of "the British... waltzing back in to take everything back" because they didn't want the United States back as direct subject provinces. All the taxes Americans hated were imposed to cover the costs of administering and defending the North American colonies, and we won the War for Independence largely by convincing Britain in effect that we weren't worth holding onto. The real threat, what kept Washington in particular up at night, wasn't reconquest but becoming a puppet of either Britain or France, formally independent but actually subservient in the same way that, well, many nations today can be said to be the vassals of an "American Empire" despite formally being independent sovereign nations. It's not clear that the Constitution was really necessary to prevent this, though, because arguably the first 20 years of US foreign policy after the ratification of the Constitution was a proxy contest between France and Britain for hegemonic control of the US, carried out in the political conflict between a pro-British party and pro-French party in America. It's a counterfactual argument to say that the Articles couldn't have handled it better because we just can't know. I'm not knowledgeable enough about diplomatic history to do it myself, but I think one could argue that even the way in which the US under the Constitution resolved the lingering issues of the Treaty of Paris was an example of subservience to Britain. What I want to emphasize is that what was at stake in the "crisis" of the 1780s (scare quotes because this is essentially federalist propaganda that historians have taken at face value for too long...) wasn't necessarily the Articles per se, but confederation as a form of interstate organization. Everyone recognized that there were problems in the 1780s. Not everyone agreed that the solution had to be a complete overhaul of the relationship between the several states on the scale of the Constitution. Now I do think we're better off with the Constitution. But it's too easy to see it as some inevitable solution to a dire problem because the victors write history, and the federalists won. Anti-federalists would have said that many of the problems that federalists raised were exaggerated or fabrications. They felt that the deficiencies of the Articles could be addressed by reform. (ETA: I should have connected this to the above point about how hard it was to get the unanimous consent needed to change the Articles; this above all is a key reason to think that reforming it was implausible.) Ultimately the biggest "security" issue that the Constitution resolved was internal. The Constitution had broad powers to regulate affairs between the states. This is something that made it very suspicious to its opponents. The Bill of Rights was on some level a sop to anti-federalists because it was only a limit on federal power. It did not, in fact, forbid any state government from violating it. Individual states maintained laws that wouldn't have been constitutional for the federal government to create (for example, the maintenance of official churches or mandatory church adherence) after ratification, and could continue to do so until the 14th Amendment effectively guaranteed that the Bill of Rights could not be violated by state laws. Whether or not we'd ultimately have been better off as a confederation than the current form of government (and I think we would not), I think it's important to keep this in mind when we deal with ideas like the "state's rights," anti-federalist strain of thought that has persisted in American conservatism to this day. (This is me making this post relevant to the topic and not just obsessive self-indulgent bloviation (which tbh it mostly is).) Just arguing that "without a stronger centralized state, these problems would have plagued us" doesn't really work, I think, on a very bone-deep, hereditary level. The original anti-federalists wanted to reform the decentralized system to handle these problems (when they recognized them as problems). They wanted to minimize the influence of many things we'd call strengths of a more centralized state while patching up the weaknesses in the Confederation's ability to function as a united front in diplomacy and war. Even down to today, I think this implies that arguing against this idea involves more than a before-and-after historical narrative. Their (and here I mean any modern conservatives, "libertarians," etc. with a fixation on the awfulness of federal power) way represents not a road abandoned but a road not ever tried. So it remains, in the realm of hypothetical, possible to have a reformed confederation, which respects the distinct sovereignty and character of its member states while shielding them all from foreign aggression. So it is that the dangerous, radical, revolutionary way is associated with consolidation of federal power: the Constitution was that sweeping and radical a change from what came before. The question is always going to be whether all that consolidation and expansion of power was really necessary to do the things they want a government to do, which is much less than what we want one to do. This isn't a question that I think can be answered purely by historical example. It is at least harder than using the Articles of Confederation as an object lesson since that amounts to asking someone to renounce their cause by merely asserting its deficiency. The failure of the Articles is, behind the scenes, perhaps not even always in a consciously recognized way, something they are still not convinced of, which is why they think as they do. GunnerJ fucked around with this message at 17:03 on Jan 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 06:56
|
|
|
So, here is a great example of what I mean:Promontorium posted:I agree. Which is why I developed a political theory that simultaneously creates the same opportunity and security of the perpetual state, AND enables anyone within to have any laws they want for any period of time they choose. But this is very ambiguous, so I'll address your points directly. This is the strangest kind of agreement to what YF19pilot said that I can imagine. It favors a "strong central government" that can be abandoned by the member states which it exists to protect, and which in any case can legislate however they please without central encroachment. What these specifications describe is what was once called a "confederation." All the usual tropes are here: the corrupt, overreaching, unaccountable federal power; claims to be the true heir to the Founders; "we didn't need to have the awful war just to deal with a little old thing like slavery;" etc. The American colonies were effectively already at war with Britain before independence was even on anyone's agenda, by the way. Initially, in a strange way, they wanted to find a way to remain within the British Empire but with a reformed relationship to the central power. Independence was only decided on when it became clear that Britain would not accept that. So no, I don't think that what you propose is plausible. (ETA: I mean, sure, they would have preferred a peaceful resolution, but independence was a course of action only taken once any peaceful resolution seemed impossible.) And hey, I'd still like to know why it is that an entity like "one of the several states of the United States" is worth considering as something with rights that it ought to be able to exercise. GunnerJ fucked around with this message at 17:07 on Jan 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 07:22
|
|
|
Promontorium posted:U.S. Navy So what does this look like? Frankly it all seems a bit vague. You want a strong central government that people can choose to be a part of or not, you seem to disagree with traditional property laws and understanding, but you don't provide any clear examples or proposals of your ideal system. I understand that you may not have a perfect vision for how exactly this works, but anything you can say would help. We can't engage in an honest discourse if we don't know what you're arguing. To make this clear: I'm not trying to hold you to a stricter standard that any other poster in this thread. Everyone here has a set of beliefs that they're arguing from, and I'm sure any of them would be more than willing to discuss their beliefs so that you can engage with them. For example: I believe in a representative democracy which enforces equality of opportunity, ensures the safety of all citizens, and provides societal direction. Once that minimum baseline is ensured, a relatively open capitalist market can take over everything else (unless elements prove unsafe.) One key element is that the society must be fundamentally slow to change so as to prevent radical factions from taking over politics. Please understand that this doesn't refer to things like passing individual laws. Instead, I meant that the fundamental values and goals of the government must be resistant to change so that they can only be revised after careful deliberation and broad consensus. It seems the obvious point that we should engage on is the timeline of societal change, so I'm going to make an argument here. You want it to be fast so that people can easily choose how the government works. I don't know what timescale you're thinking of exactly, but it seems like you want fundamental shifts in how society works in the course of years. I think it needs to be slow so that all changes can be fully deliberated and discussed, to ensure that rules are applied evenly across everyone, and to prevent radical minorities from destabilizing things a la Nazi Germany. Fundamental shifts should take generations, though smaller changes can happen much faster. Example: If California wants to secede, then they have the right to do so if it's best for everyone. But that should only happen after all effects have been fully analyzed and a broad consensus is reached among all affected parties. Critically, this consensus should not just be a single vote at one time, but a sustained belief that this is the best course of action measured over years. If this is met, then CA can secede, via a gradual transition that can be reversed if things go wrong. But CA shouldn't have the right to just up and leave one day, because that only requires a very vocal minority yelling really loudly, and may not be what's best for CA or the rest of the union. The fundamental weakness of this is that it can hurt groups in the mean time, since it can be slow to adapt to their needs. For example, gay marriage may have taken much longer under this system. However: A. Equality of opportunity is a societal value. We don't have to change the value, just the interpretation, to include gay marriage. This can be much faster, though it should still undergo a review and trial process. B. I don't believe that my proposed system should have preference towards one set of beliefs, because that set of beliefs could be wrong. C. In the short term, some people may be hurt because the system doesn't work fast enough, but this will be counterbalanced by the reduction in harmful ideas that are eliminated. It's a trade-off, but in the long term I believe it will ultimately work better. D. Violence should never be part of the process (which I think we can agree on.) This can at least lower the risk presented by slowing down change. So that's what I believe. We have a specific disagreement, I have presented a specific argument in favor of my belief, now you get a chance to respond. If there's a point of confusion please ask. EDIT: That ended up longer than I originally intended. tl;dr: please describe what your beliefs are in specific, concrete terms so that we can engage with them directly. Similarly, ask if you're confused about our beliefs so that we can all get on the same page and start having some useful discussion. Karia fucked around with this message at 08:02 on Jan 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 07:51
|
|
|
I will back down my tone from my previous post and echo Karia and put my beliefs on the line and let them be up for debate against yours. I, particularly, believe in an ecological style of anarchism: one that views communities as not just human, but existing with-in local habitats. Specifically, in terms of policy, it would ideally operate more like an updated version of the articles of confederation, but would allow for a represenatitive body as a collection of communities (some thing like a state senate or regional congress or more likely a counical of communities which would slot in similarly to a federal government). Ultimately, the end point configuration is up to the the placw from which these communities come from and the historical, political, and social conditions out from which they were born. For example, Vermont by focusing on local food production, out lawing big box stores, and favoring strong local government/organization is a prototype for the beginning of such communities. In terms of how it would come about in the United States? One would not even need to remove the federal government. Instead, whatever federal or super-communal council would offer would be something like block grants which specific communities would apply for and, in negotiation with the council/usfg ,stipulations would be agreed upon as to the nature of how the funds/resources would be used at a local level. This would allow for a way to check against things like Confederate States doing nasty poo poo by owning slaves or other violations of a decided upon ethical code/legal code. Actually, this is just one potential imagining of ecological anrachism at work. The bottom line is: the way in which these communities arise and how they configure themselves is left open as an exercise of theory developed within practice and practice being co-informed by that ever developing theory. By not specifying a particular alternative strategy, anarchist politics remains flexible to the changing historical conditions as they unfold. But even though the alternative world is up in the air, the focus is always on creating pluarlities of locally focused, community based (instead of individuality based), adaptive, and diverse political structures as the foundational principle of the philosophy. I'm still developing my thoughts on this, but thats my basic outline. The reason I believe this worldview and find it compelling? Consumption society and one that views property, goods, services, natural resources, and even people as objects and standing reserve to be made use of and exploited cannot work in a world where we make a strong effort in undoing the harm done to this planet. Eco-Anarchism is a take off of the concept of biodiversity (not THAT kind of human biodiversity). The more overlapping, plural, diverse, and locally adapted species/communities exist, the more the world can respond to and cope with the dynamic reality of life. There. My beliefs are on the line, lets chat.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 08:36
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:
How weird that this was the very point that caused this long chain of posts attempting to get you to respond: sudo rm -rf posted:Wait. Why the gently caress are we talking about a priori truths at all? Didn't jrod create and abandon another thread just a couple of months ago without answering any loving questions about the practical applications of the bullshit he preaches? He shouldn't get to change the subject, even if he disappears for several weeks. Jrod, please answer the questions about the NHS that were asked of you back in August. sudo rm -rf posted:Can we steer this back to healthcare? Jrod said this: sudo rm -rf posted:"Guys, please address my arguments!" sudo rm -rf posted:jrodefeld, why are the public health care systems of Canada and the United Kingdom better at controlling costs than the mostly private US system? You've maintained that the state is to blame for the increase in prices in the US healthcare market. Why doesn't the data outside the United States support you? How do you reconcile the mountain of evidence outside of the United States with your assertion? sudo rm -rf posted:Man it sure is weird that jrodefeld keeps ignoring the success of public health care outside the united states in favor of whining about political correctness! sudo rm -rf posted:If jrod is so eager to change topics (again), maybe he could finally answer the questions about public health care outside the United States and their unmatched success? sudo rm -rf posted:One of these days jrod is going to respond to the effectiveness of public health care outside the United States, and why it appears to be successful contrary to his assertions. I just know it! sudo rm -rf posted:Did anyone else catch the bullshit in this post? This is jrodefeld's way of avoiding having to respond the data that shits all over his assertions about health care. sudo rm -rf posted:No, gently caress off. Respond to one of the dozen posts I made about healthcare first, you loving hack. sudo rm -rf posted:Did Jrod ever respond to the contradiction between the NHS being so successful and his ideas about healthcare in the United States? sudo rm -rf posted:A reminder: sudo rm -rf posted:Oh hey jrod posted some more, and ignored the success of the NHS relative to the US again. sudo rm -rf posted:And also seeing that you seem to be responding to people about actual things that affect how people live instead of ideas, would you mind going back and explaining why the NHS has been a better vehicle for providing care and controlling costs than the US' system of healthcare? Because it is utterly at odds with your suggestion that the problems of the US healthcare market are centered in government involvement. How do you contend with the data and examples that contradict you? sudo rm -rf posted:Jrod, I have tried to get you to respond to a particular set of questions about systems of health care for about 10 months. Here it is again, for your benefit: sudo rm -rf posted:Yawn I originally asked Jrod to respond to this particular subject in October 2014.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 10:50
|
|
|
Promontorium posted:OK then I'll modify it to be Hawaii pre colonization. I have an interest in polynesian history, so: colonization by white people, or colonization by Polynesians? This is a bad example no matter which version you intended Colonization of Hawaii by white people is a thing that never really happened; the Kingdom of Hawaii transitioned directly into becoming a US territory, and then a state shortly after that. There's not really a definition of "colony" that fits what happened in Hawaii during that time period. The annexation of the kingdom by the US was arguably an injustice, but the region was never really a colony (unless you consider it a colony today, in which case your definition of "colony" is so loose that it includes every US state) Before colonization by Polynesians, the Hawaiian islands had relatively little to eat. The Polynesians had to bring a shitload of tools, plants, and animals in order to make the islands inhabitable. Local foods were not sufficient to feed the colonizing population; any birds were tiny and barely worth hunting, and fish were plentiful but difficult to catch without fishing nets. Dropping people off on Hawaii with nothing, at that time, would have doomed the colonizing party. In fact, it's likely that there were prior attempts at colonization that ended precisely due to the lack of food. And that's even assuming that people had the skills of ancient Polynesians, at least; if you took a random sampling of US people and dropped them off in pre-colonization Hawaii, they would have died even if they had the same tools that the Polynesians did. Promontorium posted:What I know is that if someone hurt you and others so badly that you devote at least two threads to perpetually bash him, either he should be perma-banned, or you should. I don't see how the rules mean anything if they forbid trolling and flaming and that's all that's happening. jrod hasn't hurt anyone, he's just an idiot that we like to laugh at. The jrod thread exists so that he can post in it without accidentally probating himself. That thread is for his benefit, not anyone else's So tell me, what kind of libertarianism do you actually believe in? Maybe we can start a little laundry list of topics for you to address, since "I am a libertarian" is essentially meaningless given how many breeds of libertarianism there are How do you feel about the US Civil War? Was it an unjustified war of Northern Aggression against property owners just seeking peaceful independence, or something else? You've said that you support "the abstract confederacy, as it fits in with minarchism." Can you elaborate on this? How do you feel about age of consent laws? Do more people suffer under Universal Healthcare systems like the kind found in the UK and Canada than would suffer under a totally free market healthcare system?
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 11:08
|
|
|
Well not like "nothing" nothing. Just like a few cans of spam, and a stainless steel knife, and a tent, and let me see what else I can loot from society before declaring my island do-over with my statist ill-gotten gains.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 11:10
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:(This is me making this post relevant to the topic and not just obsessive self-indulgent bloviation (which tbh it mostly is).) I brought up a point based on flawed "common knowledge" so addressing that is fair and relevant I think; and to address that in such a glorious effortpost is not to be besmirched, even if it is self indulgent. I was worried I might had fallen into the trap of "common knowledge" (especially as the source of my common knowledge you address - mostly modern conservative "anti-federalists"). I don't exactly feel bad for it now. Promotorium as others have stated before me, you propose a contradiction of a government - a strong central power that is weak against territories wishing to leave it. To address some of your questions: Promontorium posted:If the Declaration of Independence had been heeded by the king, rather than a war, don't you think the founders would have preferred that? What right did they have to secede that you deny in others? Is it purely about scale of complaint? The problem, I think, is the "right of secession" is a fictional right, pardon me if I'm abusing the language a bit. No territory has a right to secede from it's parent government, unless such measures were put into place upon the creation of the government. The colonies seceding from Great Britain was just as much an illegal act as the southern states breaking off and forming the CSA. The difference in the two is the light cast on these two events by history. The Revolution is painted as a noble cause, and a last resort which occurred after all diplomatic attempts to resolve the grievances of the colonies failed. It also helps that the British fired the first shots, and the majority of people being in support of the cause. The founding fathers also knew they would be hanged if they lost. The secession of southern states was predicated on slavery and the election of a president who they felt would ram-rod abolition down their throats, after a long and bloody campaign of insurgency by the pro-slavery movement against anyone who differed in opinion. The CSA also fired the first shots of the war. It's cause and the tactics used up until and beyond secession are deplorable and inhuman, and in no way is the secession of the CSA to be respected. On top of that, the founders of the CSA felt the worst that could happen to them would be re-absorption into the union, but with slavery held intact. We all would like to believe both cases could have been resolved peacefully and brought the great positives they wrought (independence and the end of slavery) without so much bloodshed, but these are fools errands which tread into the kind of southern apologia which makes people call you (general you) a racist shitheel skinhead. Further, we all agree that if a people are suffering abuses from their government, they have the right and duty to throw that government off. The southern states were not suffering abuses from the Union government. In regards to the question of "The State of Jefferson", I believe that if those people in that combined land can meet the criteria for becoming a state, they should be allowed to petition the federal government to do so. We also should understand that this will be a lengthy process, that the governments of Oregon and California should maintain the right to sue against the petition, and that at no point should "The State of Jefferson" secede from it's parent states through threat of violence. "The State of Jefferson" does not have a right to exist, but the people within that territory have the right to request that it exist, and the federal government should have the power to answer that request, in the positive, negative, or compromise.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 11:19
|
|
|
Hey Promotorium, do you know where I can get some high quality Blu-ray Hong Kong action movies? With Bruce Lee, maybe? Let me know.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 11:40
|
|
|
While we're being chummy and expressing our beliefs, I suppose I can post mine (while I'm cooking dinner). I'm not really sure what I am, as I've only recently renounced my label of Conservative-Republican. What I believe, is in the manner of human rights, we should always err on the side of more freedom. Economically, I believe that the world has advanced enough in technology, automation, and abundance of resources that we should begin to seriously consider more socialist or re-distributive models. I think we should establish a "guaranteed minimum income" which every person of the age of majority should receive through a combination of wages, and if they don't earn enough, then the government should step in and fill in the gaps. I believe in free tuition to state colleges, and subsidized/federal loans to private ones, with repayment based on earnings and with multiple avenues for loan forgiveness. I think UHC would be a good thing. I don't think free tuition and UHC are encroachments on liberty and freedom. I'm for a strong military and strong international diplomatic ties, as we've made ourselves into "the big guy" and I don't think we can back away from that, but I think we can be more responsible with how we conduct ourselves. I'm against isolationist policies, or policies that would sever ties with our allies. I think I'm rambling but the only other thing I can think of off the top of my head is that I'm for the USA supporting an independent Taiwan.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 12:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 11:18 |
|
|
YF19pilot posted:I brought up a point based on flawed "common knowledge" so addressing that is fair and relevant I think; and to address that in such a glorious effortpost is not to be besmirched, even if it is self indulgent. I was worried I might had fallen into the trap of "common knowledge" (especially as the source of my common knowledge you address - mostly modern conservative "anti-federalists"). I don't exactly feel bad for it now. I would not want you to feel bad on any level. I try to make sure that if I write long involved poo poo about "correcting history mistakes" I don't write in such a way as to make it seem like a scolding (unless, for one reason or another, someone deserves it...). Not in the least because, hell, I could be way wrong too. The majority of your post was addressing the intellectual descendant of lingering anti-federalism (state's rights, right to secede) and was on point about that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 15:56
|
|