|
In this case, she references Madisons comments in the Federalist Papers. A lot of the comments talk about how is a Good Thing Americans are not subjected to Mob Rule, as if the alternative was somehow better. Not much detail about what goes into assigning a small elite to be in charge, or how this is exactly why they think Communism is bad (because a small ruling elite will dominate over everyone).
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2023 21:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 03:25 |
|
|
Panfilo posted:In this case, she references Madisons comments in the Federalist Papers. There was talk of eliminating the direct election of senators during the tea party wave. Also, there was an article of the Free Staters in New Hampshire that called democracy a soft communism which really tells you all you need to know about the libertarian movement.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2023 23:10
|
|
|
The woke mob, ruling over us? NO THANKS to that tyranny of the majority, a.k.a. the most well-intentioned evil ever!! Tyranny of the plutocratic minority, on the other hand -- now that sounds like a solid bedrock of freedom 
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2023 00:30
|
|
|
Begging the wealthy liberal elites that I hate so much to take away my right to vote and rule over me like medieval lords
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2023 00:36
|
|
|
We're there even historical examples of "mob rule" that the framers could have pointed to?
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2023 21:11
|
|
|
Some of the libertarians were implying that England had some elected parliament system that the framers were specifically trying to avoid. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2023 21:29
|
|
|
Aside from the separation of powers there isn't that much distinction between the US and UK systems, you have the upper and lower houses and you have to elect your king every four years. But commanding absolute majorities still gets you the same kind of power it does in the UK.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2023 21:33
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Aside from the separation of powers there isn't that much distinction between the US and UK systems, you have the upper and lower houses and you have to elect your king every four years. But commanding absolute majorities still gets you the same kind of power it does in the UK. Their opposition to direct democracy is always so stupid  "what if you're on a lifeboat with nine other people and they all vote to cannibalize you for sustenance? Bet you wouldn't like democracy then!"
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2023 21:37
|
|
|
By "elect your king" I mean the king is nominally both the source of legislative legitimacy and also the container of the executive authority of the UK government (which is in practice used by the prime minister or whoever else is around if the PM calls in sick that day) so having the executive separated into the office of the president and the powers more codified, makes the president most analogous to the king. I don't know what bedtime story the US uses as the basis of its governmental legitimacy but they're all made up anyway so it doesn't enormously matter. But otherwise the US system is broadly just the UK system but with more of how it works written down. Also I feel like a lot of the complaints about mob rule are mostly issues with governmental centralization than how democratic it is. If the issue is that some dickhead across the country is telling you what to do without having any stake or understanding of the thing they're going on about, that's not improved whether they're directly elected or whether there is some complicated bollocks to make sure only certain people get to do that. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 21:47 on Feb 20, 2023 |
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2023 21:44
|
|
|
Panfilo posted:Their opposition to direct democracy is always so stupid I'm not sure what the 'correct' resolution to that one is supposed to be though, the two wolves starving to death to save the lamb sounds like a worse outcome. Maybe the ecosystem should be better balanced and they're describing an unworkable environment. (or the implication is that the masses/proles/'those people' are literal predators, it's that one)
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2023 22:43
|
|
|
Ograbme posted:We're there even historical examples of "mob rule" that the framers could have pointed to? Mostly from the late Roman Republic. The framers by and large had had classical educations and had been taught to dread the "mob democracy" of that period where populist leaders and especially ambitious Roman generals* won support from the proletarii and other lowborn Romans, eventually leading in this telling of things to establishment of Caesar's dictatorship-for-life and subsequently the reign of the Emperors and neutering of the Senate. *This is also a big part of why the framers were deeply suspicious of standing professional armies (which Napoleon appeared to confirm when he came along), and wrote the 2nd Amendment the way they did.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2023 23:03
|
|
|
Do these people even stand for anything beyond "Communists bad"? https://twitter.com/TRHLofficial/status/1627769855645556736?t=YgIdo9H5I--F9d7dznU2oQ&s=19
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2023 23:30
|
|
|
Panfilo posted:Do these people even stand for anything beyond "Communists bad"? https://twitter.com/ClickHole/status/1384898942899523584
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2023 23:34
|
|
|
The ginger lady can't hurt you, this isn't the Ring or something.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2023 23:42
|
|
|
Panfilo posted:[lmao i ain't readin that] a cogent and fair point, and quite elegantly made, but have you considered: nah still not gonna click on it lol
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2023 00:05
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:I'm pretty sure the whole "republic not a democracy" bullshit got its start with Republicans trying to argue why it's actually a super great thing that the electoral college was denying the popular vote. Another sign that these libertarians are just very lightly veiled republicans. This was pretty cool info, thanks.  And I agree, it is fascinating.I picked a poor example for this, it just drives me nuts when people insist that the definition of a republic includes having a constitution to protect the rights of minority populations when pretty much every modern state has a constitution of some sort and pre-modern republics didn't really have the latter in mind at all. It's a blatantly self-serving definition that has no grounding in, well, anything.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2023 01:54
|
|
|
Panfilo posted:Do these people even stand for anything beyond "Communists bad"? Communist and socialist both mean exactly the same thing: "bad thing that is bad." There is no further thought, nor is there any further nuance.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2023 05:33
|
|
|
Panfilo posted:Do these people even stand for anything beyond "Communists bad"? Are we sure this whole channel is not just satirical commentary on libertarians? Because I have a hard time imagining anyone saying the line about how communists used tactics and lies to vilify people and therefore shouldn't be considered human with a straight face without exploding in a ball of hypocracy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2023 07:42
|
|
|
She has True Believer dead eyes
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2023 10:51
|
|
|
She's a fascist, incoherence and hypocrisy are part of the brand.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2023 12:42
|
|
|
Panfilo posted:Do these people even stand for anything beyond "Communists bad"?
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2023 15:44
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Aside from the separation of powers there isn't that much distinction between the US and UK systems, you have the upper and lower houses and you have to elect your king every four years. But commanding absolute majorities still gets you the same kind of power it does in the UK. The UK's "upper house" is unelected and still lacks much pretense to democracy. There's also a number of differences that come from having a powerful independent executive branch, but it's also nice to have a nationally elected office for the sake of having some kind of broad legitimacy leading the government. At the time of the American Revolution, the UK's democracy was much worse, and it has since gone through a lot of reforms. Weirdly, I've heard that losing America was a critical blow to monarchism so that Parliament moved towards exercising its authority independent of the crown. Most relevant to the American revolution though, no Americans could vote for Parliament, so from their perspective as English subjects, they were getting screwed over by English standards at the time. Ograbme posted:We're there even historical examples of "mob rule" that the framers could have pointed to? I guess maybe Athens? Their democracy had a weird tendency to just kinda swing around at random, getting pulled around by whatever charismatic individual could command the crowd at any given moment. Heroes one day would become villains the next, subject to exile or execution. Although in practice, while Athens was nominally direct democracy, they had a lot of restrictions on citizenship, and ultimately only about 10-20% of the population actually participated. It gets even worse if you consider the way that the Athens ended up ruling the Delian League as a sort of empire, with many more non-Athenians being under Athenian rule. But also just, y'know, a mob. When you're in a room with a lot of disagreeing people with no structure keeping them all in line, you're not going to get real discourse, you're going to get a lot of yelling and only the loudest voices will be heard. Bad things can happen with mobs even without being formally governments.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2023 17:18
|
|
|
Ograbme posted:We're there even historical examples of "mob rule" that the framers could have pointed to? edit: actually no forget this.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2023 17:23
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:The UK's "upper house" is unelected and still lacks much pretense to democracy. There's also a number of differences that come from having a powerful independent executive branch, but it's also nice to have a nationally elected office for the sake of having some kind of broad legitimacy leading the government. A cheap shot perhaps but it is extremely funny in the year 2023 to hear somebody claim that the elected office of the US president increases the perceived legitimacy of the government 
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2023 17:25
|
|
|
When that few people can actually vote, what you've got can be less a mob and more a clique.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2023 17:25
|
|
|
The only anti democracy argument I could see a speck of validity in is the possibility of having, say 4 candidates in an election and the winner only got 26% of the total votes. But even in that situation it's not even Mob Rule since the Mob didn't exactly all vote in lockstep to the detriment of the minority. Conservative opposition to "Mob Rule" always seemed like giving away the fact that their political views are so odious they know they will never be among the majority of beliefs. NGDBSS posted:She's a fascist, incoherence and hypocrisy are part of the brand.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2023 17:28
|
|
|
The Nazis also said that about communists and conflated Jews and communists constantly! "Judeo-Bolshevism" was a whole (not real) thing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2023 17:32
|
|
|
 https://twitter.com/TRHLofficial/status/1628042816831033346?t=yX45NZ8IMmTYgK7sA0HBgA&s=19
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2023 17:40
|
|
|
Panfilo posted:
I really wish I could make money by saying nonsense online. Like that's literally a bunch of words thrown together to get people to say YAHH WOOOAH TAKE MY MONEY.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2023 18:03
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:The UK's "upper house" is unelected and still lacks much pretense to democracy. There's also a number of differences that come from having a powerful independent executive branch, but it's also nice to have a nationally elected office for the sake of having some kind of broad legitimacy leading the government. At the time of the American Revolution, for example, Parliament had a bit problem with the "rotten boroughs" that had parliamentary seats despite having almost no residents. Which is part of why regularly holding a census and reapportioning Congress was an important concern. And as I always understood it, the important part was the distinction against direct democracy, right. Even with historic democracies only giving voting citizenship to a minority of people, and even with the early American fantasy of military and legislature alike being temporary community service rather than a profession, putting every decision up to a popular vote is always going to be capricious and easy to manipulate, as we can see with on the state level or in the UK. Even if sometimes it gives better results than actively evil elected officials.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2023 18:20
|
|
|
Panfilo posted:The only anti democracy argument I could see a speck of validity in is the possibility of having, say 4 candidates in an election and the winner only got 26% of the total votes. But even in that situation it's not even Mob Rule since the Mob didn't exactly all vote in lockstep to the detriment of the minority. There was a period a while back when libertarians were all about alternative voting systems as a way of breaking the two party hold and the "must vote for red/blue candidate or blue/red candidate gets in" effect, which should be a good thing for third parties. Guess these new types realized that you still need to have policies that a majority of people actually want to benefit from that though, so voting is communist now.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2023 18:21
|
|
|
 https://twitter.com/LPMisesCaucus/status/1625217886871494656?t=GUnwg_tubl1aAkbCchEZqQ&s=19 Don't these guys HATE unions? Just imagine what dumbfuck take they would have if the strike went through and their pappy's sweatshop in Sweetbutt WV got a bit of backlog for a week or two. Panfilo fucked around with this message at 19:27 on Feb 22, 2023 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2023 16:43
|
|
|
They also hate nonwhite people, but they'll gladly latch onto police brutality or the War On Drugs or anything that makes them look more democratic than they really are.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2023 17:07
|
|
|
Panfilo posted:
Yes and if the strike had gone ahead they'd be screaming to deploy the US Army to machine-gun union organizers in defense of private property and freedom of contract. But it didn't and they have no problem opportunistically crediting union action with the hypothetical ability to have prevented this disaster as part of an argument that government is the problem and the invisible hand of the free market knows best.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2023 18:31
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:They also hate nonwhite people, but they'll gladly latch onto police brutality or the War On Drugs or anything that makes them look more democratic than they really are. Jrod would even make these arguments back to back. Government is the primary threat to minorities because the cops violate their civil rights constantly with no recourse. And also private police would be much more effective because they wouldn't have their hands tied by political correctness and can do racial profiling, can lock up all the "criminals" and "terrorists" without fear that politicians will accuse them of racism etc
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2023 19:00
|
|
|
Mooseontheloose posted:I really wish I could make money by saying nonsense online. Like that's literally a bunch of words thrown together to get people to say YAHH WOOOAH TAKE MY MONEY. Isn't her main money made from being one of the myriad weirdoes in the background of Tim Pool's lovely show?
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2023 11:57
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:I'm pretty sure the whole "republic not a democracy" bullshit got its start with Republicans trying to argue why it's actually a super great thing that the electoral college was denying the popular vote. Another sign that these libertarians are just very lightly veiled republicans. Panfilo posted:In this case, she references Madisons comments in the Federalist Papers. On a semi-related note, Jefferson wrote in reply to John Adams: quote:I agree with you that there is a natural aristocracy among men. The grounds of this are virtue and talents. Formerly bodily powers gave place among the aristoi. But since the invention of gunpowder has armed the weak as well as the strong with missile death, bodily strength, like beauty, good humor, politeness and other accomplishments, has become but an auxiliary ground of distinction. There is also an artificial aristocracy founded on wealth and birth, without either virtue or talents; for with these it would belong to the first class. The natural aristocracy I consider as the most precious gift of nature for the instruction, the trusts, and government of society. And indeed it would have been inconsistent in creation to have formed man for the social state, and not to have provided virtue and wisdom enough to manage the concerns of the society. May we not even say that that form of government is the best which provides the most effectually for a pure selection of these natural aristoi into the offices of government? The artificial aristocracy is a mischievous ingredient in government, and provision should be made to prevent it's ascendancy. On the question, What is the best provision, you and I differ; but we differ as rational friends, using the free exercise of our own reason, and mutually indulging it's errors. VitalSigns posted:Begging the wealthy liberal elites that I hate so much to take away my right to vote and rule over me like medieval lords Enver Zogha fucked around with this message at 20:04 on Feb 23, 2023 |
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2023 14:32
|
|
|
An important thing to remember whenever TRL talks about the framers or any other founding-era historical figure is that she treats them more as scriptural figures than historical ones. She has a simplistic, romantic view on that generation and venerates them as the Great Men who did Great Things, and any nuance or ambiguity in what they said or did just doesn't enter into it. This is an aspect of why I, and others, call her a fascist in libertarian-skin clothing: the blind veneration of a semi-mythic, purer past before the degenerates showed up to ruin everything. Additionally, I'd bet a fair amount she knows perfectly well that the words she's putting into their mouths are at best misinterpretations in those cases they're not wholly false, which too adds to the overall idea of who she really is. Reveling in bad faith argumentation is another tell that someone's got a color-coded uniform they're just dying for an excuse to wear openly.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2023 21:07
|
|
|
Panfilo posted:
you think that's ? you ain't seen nothing yet:https://twitter.com/LPCO/status/1628595924602871808 
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2023 21:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 03:25 |
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:An important thing to remember whenever TRL talks about the framers or any other founding-era historical figure is that she treats them more as scriptural figures than historical ones. She has a simplistic, romantic view on that generation and venerates them as the Great Men who did Great Things, and any nuance or ambiguity in what they said or did just doesn't enter into it. This is an aspect of why I, and others, call her a fascist in libertarian-skin clothing: the blind veneration of a semi-mythic, purer past before the degenerates showed up to ruin everything. Additionally, I'd bet a fair amount she knows perfectly well that the words she's putting into their mouths are at best misinterpretations in those cases they're not wholly false, which too adds to the overall idea of who she really is. Reveling in bad faith argumentation is another tell that someone's got a color-coded uniform they're just dying for an excuse to wear openly.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2023 21:13
|
|