Ideology

A Place to respectfully discuss those topics that you should never discuss.
post

Re: Ideology

Postby Zarniwoop » Thu Jan 25, 2018 1:04 pm

uscbucsfan wrote:
Also, what are things in your political views that conflict with your main ideologies?




This is an excellent question and one in which people often fool themselves. First off, I think very few people truly have an underlying political philosophy and decision calculus. I think most people simply want to do what they instinctively feel is right at that particular moment. As such, these emotions will often lead to contradictory positions on issues. I think the reason for that is that for one to adopt a truly consistent political philosophy, they have to be willing to live with the sub-optimal on some decisions. I don't think many people are comfortable with that. I'm willing to admit that my political philosophy will often hurt things in the short term in order to improve them in the long term.

I think the one area where I find myself struggling with conflict is when I often say we as individuals have so much more power then we know -- particularly when it comes to economic issues. I think in theory we do...but in reality, I simply think people get distracted with day to day life and neglect their responsibilities. Many times I think it would be easier if we simply adopted the "nudge" approach espoused by thaler and other Keynesian folks and that little intervention wouldn't be all that bad. But then I quickly see just how bureaucrats would turn people being comfortable with little intervention to people being comfortable with large scale intervention.
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 5428
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 247 times
Been thanked: 259 times

Re: Ideology

Postby Buc2 » Thu Jan 25, 2018 1:06 pm

Image
Image
Don't tread on me
User avatar
Buc2
 
Posts: 10414
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:16 pm
Location: America
Has thanked: 883 times
Been thanked: 359 times

Re: Ideology

Postby Buc2 » Thu Jan 25, 2018 1:19 pm

I'm conflicted by a genuine care for people and the desire to see everyone happy and prosperous with my more conservative economic view. The caring side of me wants to throw money at the less fortunate (welfare if you will), while my conservative side sees the folly of that practice based on years of seeing current government practices in action. So the little guy on my left shoulder wants to feed the kitty until it's fat and lazy, while the little guy on my right shoulder wants to cut the kitty off and make it work for what it gets.

Abortion is another issue where I was at odds with my former favorite political party. My new favorite political party solves that issue for me quite nicely...

The U.S. Libertarian Party political platform (2012) states: "Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration."
Image
Don't tread on me
User avatar
Buc2
 
Posts: 10414
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:16 pm
Location: America
Has thanked: 883 times
Been thanked: 359 times

Re: Ideology

Postby Zarniwoop » Thu Jan 25, 2018 1:42 pm

Buc2 wrote:I'm conflicted by a genuine care for people and the desire to see everyone happy and prosperous with my more conservative economic view. The caring side of me wants to throw money at the less fortunate (welfare if you will), while my conservative side sees the folly of that practice based on years of seeing current government practices in action. So the little guy on my left shoulder wants to feed the kitty until it's fat and lazy, while the little guy on my right shoulder wants to cut the kitty off and make it work for what it gets.

Abortion is another issue where I was at odds with my former favorite political party. My new favorite political party solves that issue for me quite nicely...

The U.S. Libertarian Party political platform (2012) states: "Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration."



Libertarians are often split on abortion. For every article I read in support of choice, I'll read another against it.

If you ever really want to dive into the arguments they make pro and con, this is an awesome website to read:

http://libertarianpapers.org/archive/li ... me-9-2017/



That being said, you have to be willing to read incredibly dense, long articles -- much more like academic articles than trade articles


It's a must read site for me!
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 5428
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 247 times
Been thanked: 259 times

Re: Ideology

Postby uscbucsfan » Thu Jan 25, 2018 1:48 pm

Zarniwoop wrote:
uscbucsfan wrote:
Also, what are things in your political views that conflict with your main ideologies?



I think the one area where I find myself struggling with conflict is when I often say we as individuals have so much more power then we know -- particularly when it comes to economic issues. I think in theory we do...but in reality, I simply think people get distracted with day to day life and neglect their responsibilities. Many times I think it would be easier if we simply adopted the "nudge" approach espoused by thaler and other Keynesian folks and that little intervention wouldn't be all that bad. But then I quickly see just how bureaucrats would turn people being comfortable with little intervention to people being comfortable with large scale intervention.


I think many free market economist have had the same conflict of government nudging that you do. I remember studying Smith in college and having some disagreement with his thoughts on monopolistic regulation. I have many reasons to disagree with him, but the crux of it is that, like you, I understand what government intervention can snowball to. I also have more faith in the consumer and innovation, but that's a different topic.

I have a pretty strict underlying political philosophy. As detailed in the past, my wife and I spend our Friday nights drinking and debating Politics. We agree on the topic and she picks the side while I take the opposition. It's fun for us and allows us to flesh out every aspect of our political opinions/agendas. Where I meet conflict is in the things I believe applied to our society and culture. I believe most have this issue as the USA is different than any other country or society anywhere/when. Things that have worked in some places won't work here because of the culture, history, diversity, etc. (ex: Australia gun control) There are/have been times where I've run into conflict making concessions to theories or ideas and working them into our society. An example is monopolies (going full circle). In our society, with the government that is in place and it's involvement in business, regulations is necessary, as the government is often facilitating the monopoly. These need to be stopped as it's inorganic to the market and bad for the consumer. The concessions are what makes it go from being theory on paper to real.
Image
User avatar
uscbucsfan
 
Posts: 4371
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:21 pm
Has thanked: 100 times
Been thanked: 118 times

Re: Ideology

Postby beardmcdoug » Thu Jan 25, 2018 2:07 pm

Zarniwoop wrote:
uscbucsfan wrote:
Also, what are things in your political views that conflict with your main ideologies?




This is an excellent question and one in which people often fool themselves. First off, I think very few people truly have an underlying political philosophy and decision calculus. I think most people simply want to do what they instinctively feel is right at that particular moment. As such, these emotions will often lead to contradictory positions on issues. I think the reason for that is that for one to adopt a truly consistent political philosophy, they have to be willing to live with the sub-optimal on some decisions. I don't think many people are comfortable with that. I'm willing to admit that my political philosophy will often hurt things in the short term in order to improve them in the long term.

I think the one area where I find myself struggling with conflict is when I often say we as individuals have so much more power then we know -- particularly when it comes to economic issues. I think in theory we do...but in reality, I simply think people get distracted with day to day life and neglect their responsibilities. Many times I think it would be easier if we simply adopted the "nudge" approach espoused by thaler and other Keynesian folks and that little intervention wouldn't be all that bad. But then I quickly see just how bureaucrats would turn people being comfortable with little intervention to people being comfortable with large scale intervention.


enjoyed reading your posts guys -- zarni the bolded is a really great point. going to have to think on this one for a little... but it is certainly a really interesting topic...
User avatar
beardmcdoug
 
Posts: 2783
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2016 12:30 pm
Has thanked: 328 times
Been thanked: 223 times

Re: Ideology

Postby DreadNaught » Mon Feb 12, 2018 9:53 am

Not sure if this is the best thread for this, but it has to do with ideas so I figured I'd put it here.

For those that listen to podcasts I HIGHLY recommend a recent episode of the Rubin Report with Eric and Brett Weinstein as guests. Very enlightening discussion imo and I must say there is recent surge in the quality of discussion that is being had outside of the mainstream.

This particular discussion was about 3 hours long and touched on variety of things, but mainly spoke to how the institutions in our country are failing there citizens and how instead of tearing down those institutions they can be tweaked to improve. They touch on politics, but it's more from idea angle vice a team politics perspective. Overall it was very honest conversation which was refreshing.

For some context who the guests are, the Weinstein's are both liberal intellectuals that have been ostracized by the hard left for not toeing the line. Imo they represent what it means to truley be liberal before the postmodern identity politics took control of the party and demanded the uniformity/cult like atmosphere that is pervasive with many on the left these days where even having discussions that challenge the narrative gets you labeled and attacked (like we've seen with Bret Weinstien, JP, etc).

Anyways, it's certainly worth a listen imo.
Image
User avatar
DreadNaught
 
Posts: 12018
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:18 am
Has thanked: 500 times
Been thanked: 521 times

Re: Ideology

Postby Zarniwoop » Mon Feb 12, 2018 10:16 am

DreadNaught wrote:Not sure if this is the best thread for this, but it has to do with ideas so I figured I'd put it here.

For those that listen to podcasts I HIGHLY recommend a recent episode of the Rubin Report with Eric and Brett Weinstein as guests. Very enlightening discussion imo and I must say there is recent surge in the quality of discussion that is being had outside of the mainstream.

This particular discussion was about 3 hours long and touched on variety of things, but mainly spoke to how the institutions in our country are failing there citizens and how instead of tearing down those institutions they can be tweaked to improve. They touch on politics, but it's more from idea angle vice a team politics perspective. Overall it was very honest conversation which was refreshing.

For some context who the guests are, the Weinstein's are both liberal intellectuals that have been ostracized by the hard left for not toeing the line. Imo they represent what it means to truley be liberal before the postmodern identity politics took control of the party and demanded the uniformity/cult like atmosphere that is pervasive with many on the left these days where even having discussions that challenge the narrative gets you labeled and attacked (like we've seen with Bret Weinstien, JP, etc).

Anyways, it's certainly worth a listen imo.




Interesting...I'll check it out, thanks for the recommendation



For what its worth, sadly we haven't seen classic liberalism in this country (by either group) for 100+ years in this country. If these guys are espousing its principles, I will definitely be eager to listen
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 5428
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 247 times
Been thanked: 259 times

Re: Ideology

Postby DreadNaught » Mon Feb 12, 2018 11:17 am

Zarniwoop wrote:
DreadNaught wrote:Not sure if this is the best thread for this, but it has to do with ideas so I figured I'd put it here.

For those that listen to podcasts I HIGHLY recommend a recent episode of the Rubin Report with Eric and Brett Weinstein as guests. Very enlightening discussion imo and I must say there is recent surge in the quality of discussion that is being had outside of the mainstream.

This particular discussion was about 3 hours long and touched on variety of things, but mainly spoke to how the institutions in our country are failing there citizens and how instead of tearing down those institutions they can be tweaked to improve. They touch on politics, but it's more from idea angle vice a team politics perspective. Overall it was very honest conversation which was refreshing.

For some context who the guests are, the Weinstein's are both liberal intellectuals that have been ostracized by the hard left for not toeing the line. Imo they represent what it means to truley be liberal before the postmodern identity politics took control of the party and demanded the uniformity/cult like atmosphere that is pervasive with many on the left these days where even having discussions that challenge the narrative gets you labeled and attacked (like we've seen with Bret Weinstien, JP, etc).

Anyways, it's certainly worth a listen imo.


Interesting...I'll check it out, thanks for the recommendation

For what its worth, we haven't seen classic liberalism in this country (by either group) for 100+ years in this country. If these guys are espousing its principles, I will definitely be eager to listen


Yup, classic liberalism and fiscal conservatism/responability no longer exists in government. At least not in the sense that either party makes that part of the their platform these days.

To steal a point from that podcast, I agree/believe we as Americans are mostly liberal, what I mean by that is that if you didn't know anything about the major political parties and just had blank slate I feel most people would be left of center. But the Democratic party has betrayed so many people with their more recent shift to postmodernist thinking.

Instead of creating barriers with the radicals the Democratic leadership has become radical to where those left behind and ostracized are finding themselves to have more in common with the libertarians and center-right. It goes back Faye's horseshoe theory in political science where identitarians are much more similar than they are different despite being considered on the opposite ends of the traditional linear continuum/spectrum.
Last edited by DreadNaught on Mon Feb 12, 2018 1:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image
User avatar
DreadNaught
 
Posts: 12018
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:18 am
Has thanked: 500 times
Been thanked: 521 times

Re: Ideology

Postby Zarniwoop » Mon Feb 12, 2018 11:36 am

DreadNaught wrote:
To steal a point from that podcast, I agree/believe we as Americans are mostly liberal, what I mean by that is that if you didn't know anything about the major political parties and just had blank slate I feel most people would be left of center.



I think it largely depends on what you define as liberal....do you mean they support that policies of what constitutes modern democratic liberalism today? Or are we back to the idea of classic liberalism? Or do you simply mean that they would vote along the lines of the D folks more than the R folks if they voted 1,000 times on a 1,000 issues?

If it's the last of the three I threw out, I would tend to agree




DreadNaught wrote:
But the Democratic party has betrayed so many people with their more recent shift to postmodernist thinking.

Instead of creating barriers with the radicals the Democratic leadership has become radical to where those left behind and ostracized are finding themselves to have more in common with the libertarians and center-right. It goes back Faye's horseshoe theory political science where identitarians are much more similar than they are different despite being considered on the opposite ends of the traditional linear continuum/spectrum.



I don't think there is any question that the democratic party is one of postmodernism and not liberalism whether it be social policy liberalism or fiscal liberalism.

For what it's worth, when I think of a "centrist" liberal, I think of Bill Clinton. I don't think he'd have a snowballs chance in hell of winning the party's nomination today.
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 5428
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 247 times
Been thanked: 259 times

Re: Ideology

Postby DreadNaught » Mon Feb 12, 2018 12:07 pm

Zarniwoop wrote:
DreadNaught wrote:To steal a point from that podcast, I agree/believe we as Americans are mostly liberal, what I mean by that is that if you didn't know anything about the major political parties and just had blank slate I feel most people would be left of center.

I think it largely depends on what you define as liberal....do you mean they support that policies of what constitutes modern democratic liberalism today? Or are we back to the idea of classic liberalism? Or do you simply mean that they would vote along the lines of the D folks more than the R folks if they voted 1,000 times on a 1,000 issues?

If it's the last of the three I threw out, I would tend to agree

I 100% the definition of what is liberal needs clarification these days and a huge part of what needs to be de-conflated. To answer your question my post was in regards to classic liberal ideas that drove the Democratic platform before postmodernist thinking came to the surface and was adopted by the leadership.

Zarniwoop wrote:
DreadNaught wrote:But the Democratic party has betrayed so many people with their more recent shift to postmodernist thinking.

Instead of creating barriers with the radicals the Democratic leadership has become radical to where those left behind and ostracized are finding themselves to have more in common with the libertarians and center-right. It goes back Faye's horseshoe theory political science where identitarians are much more similar than they are different despite being considered on the opposite ends of the traditional linear continuum/spectrum.

I don't think there is any question that the democratic party is one of postmodernism and not liberalism whether it be social policy liberalism or fiscal liberalism.

For what it's worth, when I think of a "centrist" liberal, I think of Bill Clinton. I don't think he'd have a snowballs chance in hell of winning the party's nomination today.

I agree.

Like many conservatives I've made jabs at "liberals" in the past, but I want to try and be more careful to NOT speak about liberalism in a demeaning way moving forward. While I make jabs here and there they are mostly directed at the postmodernist views. I do share many classical liberal views like I assume most on "right" do as well. Which is why I think there is clear distinction between a leftist and liberal in modern political ideology.

I just think that we as a society are growing further apart in our discourse to where it's all labels and shouting down based on how we can put someone with a view that challenges our own into a box so we don't have to listen. There are alot of morals and ideas that people do share and in this divide something positive can emerge from the center.
Last edited by DreadNaught on Mon Feb 12, 2018 1:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image
User avatar
DreadNaught
 
Posts: 12018
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:18 am
Has thanked: 500 times
Been thanked: 521 times

Re: Ideology

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Mon Feb 12, 2018 12:17 pm

The Democrats are in a state of flux right now.

The Clinton wing of the party is where you are seeing the identity politics which is used as a tool to keep the different factions of the party coalesced around the DNC. It's great for letting each group think they are being represented and special but it has spurned some of the dumb **** that makes the average Joe wonder WTF is going on like "gender is a social construct" ad dumb **** like that. The funny thing is that all of that does nothing but provide some sort of warped lip service as this is also the limousine liberal wing of the party that still keeps the likes of Pelosi and Schumer in power. It's the social liberals.

The other end is the Bernie wing that is much more populist and economic in their thinking. While it is, in my opinion, the better wing of the party, it has the downside of entertaining the straight up socialists who do not present a viable solution. We want healthcare, tuition, campaign reform, and the dismantling of the MIC, but too many voices in this wing are seeking to nationalize banks and industries while we're at it.

You could fracture these two wings even further because of all the different perspectives and issues that differ within them. The problem here is a lack of leadership within the party and little effort to compromise among the different factions. The Hillary types tell everyone else to STFU and do as they're told, and the "hard left" will not allow the status quo to continue.

What I see happening right now is progressives running grassroots campaigns that mirror Bernie's that have almost no support from the DNC. There's one gal running a primary challenge from the left of Joe Manchin in WV that seems to be the bellwether race for this movement. We'll see how many win this year (Trump helps) but there will continue to be a gulf between these pseudo-independent Bernie-bros and the party establishment. Ultimately, I would like to see the party continue with this and become FDR-ish in it's proposals, policies, etc. to insulate as many Americans as possible from the fluctuations of the market from a labor standpoint. And much more isolated from the big money interests that are running the show these days. Lord willing there will be a similar movement in the GOP in Trump's wake.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 12580
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Location: Crestucky
Has thanked: 130 times
Been thanked: 607 times

Re: Ideology

Postby DreadNaught » Mon Feb 12, 2018 12:53 pm

Mountaineer Buc wrote:The Democrats are in a state of flux right now.

The Clinton wing of the party is where you are seeing the identity politics which is used as a tool to keep the different factions of the party coalesced around the DNC. It's great for letting each group think they are being represented and special but it has spurned some of the dumb **** that makes the average Joe wonder WTF is going on like "gender is a social construct" ad dumb **** like that. The funny thing is that all of that does nothing but provide some sort of warped lip service as this is also the limousine liberal wing of the party that still keeps the likes of Pelosi and Schumer in power. It's the social liberals.

The other end is the Bernie wing that is much more populist and economic in their thinking. While it is, in my opinion, the better wing of the party, it has the downside of entertaining the straight up socialists who do not present a viable solution. We want healthcare, tuition, campaign reform, and the dismantling of the MIC, but too many voices in this wing are seeking to nationalize banks and industries while we're at it.

You could fracture these two wings even further because of all the different perspectives and issues that differ within them. The problem here is a lack of leadership within the party and little effort to compromise among the different factions. The Hillary types tell everyone else to STFU and do as they're told, and the "hard left" will not allow the status quo to continue.

What I see happening right now is progressives running grassroots campaigns that mirror Bernie's that have almost no support from the DNC. There's one gal running a primary challenge from the left of Joe Manchin in WV that seems to be the bellwether race for this movement. We'll see how many win this year (Trump helps) but there will continue to be a gulf between these pseudo-independent Bernie-bros and the party establishment. Ultimately, I would like to see the party continue with this and become FDR-ish in it's proposals, policies, etc. to insulate as many Americans as possible from the fluctuations of the market from a labor standpoint. And much more isolated from the big money interests that are running the show these days. Lord willing there will be a similar movement in the GOP in Trump's wake.


Good post. I'd be interested to hear your take on the podcast I referenced above since it speaks what you just posted in terms of institutions failing their citizens specific to that last point you made regarding markets and how elites get the lions share of the rewards and just socialize the losses on citizens.

I do agree the biggest problem with Democrats is not their values or ideas, but rather their leadership. While the same is true for Republicans, I don't think it's as pervasive as we see on the left among the leadership. I don't understand why Democrats haven't demanded more/better from the DNC after what we all know occurred during the last election. Perhaps money/donors is the explanation. The focus as been on resisting/hating Trump, which I understand. I just think you can do more than one thing at time and resist/hate Trump while also re-branding the party leadership/message to be more reflective of people like yourself. Instead they just changed some people around but the ideas are the same.
Image
User avatar
DreadNaught
 
Posts: 12018
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:18 am
Has thanked: 500 times
Been thanked: 521 times

Re: Ideology

Postby PrimeMinister » Mon Feb 12, 2018 1:04 pm

So many great posts on his page. Thanks for the read.
PrimeMinister
 
Posts: 7575
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:34 am
Has thanked: 35 times
Been thanked: 206 times

Re: Ideology

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Mon Feb 12, 2018 1:35 pm

DreadNaught wrote:
Mountaineer Buc wrote:The Democrats are in a state of flux right now.

The Clinton wing of the party is where you are seeing the identity politics which is used as a tool to keep the different factions of the party coalesced around the DNC. It's great for letting each group think they are being represented and special but it has spurned some of the dumb **** that makes the average Joe wonder WTF is going on like "gender is a social construct" ad dumb **** like that. The funny thing is that all of that does nothing but provide some sort of warped lip service as this is also the limousine liberal wing of the party that still keeps the likes of Pelosi and Schumer in power. It's the social liberals.

The other end is the Bernie wing that is much more populist and economic in their thinking. While it is, in my opinion, the better wing of the party, it has the downside of entertaining the straight up socialists who do not present a viable solution. We want healthcare, tuition, campaign reform, and the dismantling of the MIC, but too many voices in this wing are seeking to nationalize banks and industries while we're at it.

You could fracture these two wings even further because of all the different perspectives and issues that differ within them. The problem here is a lack of leadership within the party and little effort to compromise among the different factions. The Hillary types tell everyone else to STFU and do as they're told, and the "hard left" will not allow the status quo to continue.

What I see happening right now is progressives running grassroots campaigns that mirror Bernie's that have almost no support from the DNC. There's one gal running a primary challenge from the left of Joe Manchin in WV that seems to be the bellwether race for this movement. We'll see how many win this year (Trump helps) but there will continue to be a gulf between these pseudo-independent Bernie-bros and the party establishment. Ultimately, I would like to see the party continue with this and become FDR-ish in it's proposals, policies, etc. to insulate as many Americans as possible from the fluctuations of the market from a labor standpoint. And much more isolated from the big money interests that are running the show these days. Lord willing there will be a similar movement in the GOP in Trump's wake.


Good post. I'd be interested to hear your take on the podcast I referenced above since it speaks what you just posted in terms of institutions failing their citizens specific to that last point you made regarding markets and how elites get the lions share of the rewards and just socialize the losses on citizens.

I do agree the biggest problem with Democrats is not their values or ideas, but rather their leadership. While the same is true for Republicans, I don't think it's as pervasive as we see on the left among the leadership. I don't understand why Democrats haven't demanded more/better from the DNC after what we all know occurred during the last election. Perhaps money/donors is the explanation. The focus as been on resisting/hating Trump, which I understand. I just think you can do more than one thing at time and resist/hate Trump while also re-branding the party leadership/message to be more reflective of people like yourself. Instead they just changed some people around but the ideas are the same.

I'll give your podcast a listen this afternoon. But I want to ad that the resistance to Trump, while universal, is being pushed by the Hillary wing who is trying to squelch this little revolution. Focus on the bad guy, not how we take money from big Pharma and vote down Bernie's reform bill.

On populism in the GOP. There's absolutely a strong desire for right wing populism which in my view is precisely how Trump got elected (moreso than Russia which I have long maintained) Unfortunately for Republicans, Trump has turned out to be nothing of the sort. the only thing he seems to do effectively is piss people off (good enough for Brazen) but there's no populism in his governance.

I'll leave it to the conservatives on the board to articulate what kind of right-wing populism they want to see, but thus far it isn't all that different from the left-wing in terms of restoring public control over government. Same diagnosis, different pathology, different treatments.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 12580
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Location: Crestucky
Has thanked: 130 times
Been thanked: 607 times

Re: Ideology

Postby Zarniwoop » Mon Feb 12, 2018 1:51 pm

I certainly don’t want right wing populism
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 5428
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 247 times
Been thanked: 259 times

Re: Ideology

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Mon Feb 12, 2018 1:54 pm

Zarniwoop wrote:I certainly don’t want right wing populism

Me neither. LOL
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 12580
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Location: Crestucky
Has thanked: 130 times
Been thanked: 607 times

Re: Ideology

Postby beardmcdoug » Mon Feb 12, 2018 2:01 pm

why not?











lol
User avatar
beardmcdoug
 
Posts: 2783
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2016 12:30 pm
Has thanked: 328 times
Been thanked: 223 times

Re: Ideology

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Mon Feb 12, 2018 3:02 pm

DreadNaught wrote:Not sure if this is the best thread for this, but it has to do with ideas so I figured I'd put it here.

For those that listen to podcasts I HIGHLY recommend a recent episode of the Rubin Report with Eric and Brett Weinstein as guests. Very enlightening discussion imo and I must say there is recent surge in the quality of discussion that is being had outside of the mainstream.

This particular discussion was about 3 hours long and touched on variety of things, but mainly spoke to how the institutions in our country are failing there citizens and how instead of tearing down those institutions they can be tweaked to improve. They touch on politics, but it's more from idea angle vice a team politics perspective. Overall it was very honest conversation which was refreshing.

For some context who the guests are, the Weinstein's are both liberal intellectuals that have been ostracized by the hard left for not toeing the line. Imo they represent what it means to truley be liberal before the postmodern identity politics took control of the party and demanded the uniformity/cult like atmosphere that is pervasive with many on the left these days where even having discussions that challenge the narrative gets you labeled and attacked (like we've seen with Bret Weinstien, JP, etc).

Anyways, it's certainly worth a listen imo.


Okay, I stopped at the 47 minute mark because it pretty much encapsulates the premise you've presented in the third paragraph. What I find remarkable from these two men is that they have not....at least not so far....included the right in terms of this type of cultist thinking. The capability for people to chase their confirmation bias is not an idea the left has a monopoly on. Nor is rejecting those who stray from orthodoxy. But I will admit it is rather acute to the left right now to shout down differing voices within the same ideology. This goes back to the suggestion the progressives STFU and stick with the Clintonite brain-trust.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 12580
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Location: Crestucky
Has thanked: 130 times
Been thanked: 607 times

Re: Ideology

Postby Zarniwoop » Mon Feb 12, 2018 6:32 pm

DN - I got about 1/2 way through, I hope I can find time to finish.

I really liked listening to those guys. They are a nice blend of theoretical and pragmatic.

The best part is from 1:03 to 1:18.

In that 15 minutes they hit 4 big points

1. DNC reacting to and competing against Trump in the general election and just how wrong they were, as the brothers said, they doubled down on their idiocy

2. Just how awful Trump’s flippant remarks are and how counter they are to the ideals of America

3. Just how hard our society tries to silence free thinkers who break the modern political paradigm like Talib and Peterson

4. Just how pathetic modern media is and just how strongly they prop up the establishment .... and just how stupid they are by not realizing it’s what they are doing.




The other thing I liked that you eluded to is just how destructive the parties are to anyone who doesn’t toe the line....example .... how awful some progressives are to these brothers even though the brothers have always viewed themselves as liberal. Which makes me wonder at the irony, that as a society we are seeing people define themselves and self identify when it comes to so many things (even biological ones) yet when it comes to politics people can’t self-identify, rather the establishment does it for them. And luckily the establishment is devouring itself as it continues to demonize it’s own members



Thanks again for suggesting it....I’d certainly welcome a discussion of any other of their talking points
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 5428
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 247 times
Been thanked: 259 times

Re: Ideology

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Mon Feb 12, 2018 6:44 pm

Which makes me wonder at the irony, that as a society we are seeing people define themselves and self identify when it comes to so many things (even biological ones) yet when it comes to politics people can’t self-identify, rather the establishment does it for them.

Otherwise they aren't a "True Conservative" or a "Real Progressive".


Interesting.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 12580
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Location: Crestucky
Has thanked: 130 times
Been thanked: 607 times

Re: Ideology

Postby Zarniwoop » Tue Feb 13, 2018 11:28 am

Finished listening this morning. The rest of it was pretty good as well.

I looked through other guests that Rubin has had on and they look interesting Dawkins, Harris, Shapiro, Peterson, Fry, etc.

I will give more a listen..Rubin seems to be a good interviewer, I like his questioning style
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 5428
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 247 times
Been thanked: 259 times

Re: Ideology

Postby DreadNaught » Tue Feb 13, 2018 12:22 pm

Zarniwoop wrote:Finished listening this morning. The rest of it was pretty good as well.

I looked through other guests that Rubin has had on and they look interesting Dawkins, Harris, Shapiro, Peterson, Fry, etc.

I will give more a listen..Rubin seems to be a good interviewer, I like his questioning style


Yeah, I like Rubin (no homo) as a host. All those guys are interesting and if you (or anyone else here) is interested in these types of idea discussions I can start linking them. Regardless of whether these guys are liberal or conservative they are all independent thinkers, so the conversations are so refreshing compared to the nonsense you get on cable news or other MSM sources.

Sam Harris is very bright guy I enjoy listening to. He's got his own podcast also. Another liberal that took an intelligent stance on Muslims and was shouted down by the postmodernist left.

I love Shapiro, but he's not for everyone and triggers the **** out of people who don't like their ideology challenged b/c he can be abrasive. So unfortunately he mostly just speaks into an echo chamber of folks that likely support him already.
Image
User avatar
DreadNaught
 
Posts: 12018
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:18 am
Has thanked: 500 times
Been thanked: 521 times

Re: Ideology

Postby Zarniwoop » Tue Feb 13, 2018 1:38 pm

I listened to 45 minutes of the Rubin and Harris one as I ate my PB&J today at lunch. It was another great session. All these guys he has on are what I think the founders would have been like. They take long term philosophical, well thought out stances on issues. They challenge themselves to understand that the world/life/politics can't be micromanaged. Rather they focus on first principles and are willing to live with the downside of a society organized around them. As I'm sure one could gather from my posting history, I certainly don't agree with everything someone like Harris says, but I very much respect his opinion because it is clear he has truly thought about the issues and how it fits into a much larger picture about society. Compare that to the all too often seen emotional outburst of a response that passes for political discourse nowadays.

It is interesting listening to someone like Harris after recently listening to a Peterson podcast. Harris is Aristotle to Peterson's Plato -- meaning his world view is much more geared to "form" (as it was used in ancient times....for lack of a better descriptor we tend to call it empiricism now). Harris is much more inductive where Peterson is much more deductive.

It tickles the geeky intellectual in me to see the two different approaches. I respect them both immensely.







As for Rubin, I'm so happy that the intrawebs is out there to provide a platform for his discussion style. It is so antithetical to modern 30 second snippet crap that we see both in the media, and often times on this board. Rubin never once told someone what they believe or went to some hyperbolic extreme suggesting if someone believes in X, they must also believe in Y. Again, that happens all the time in the media and on this board. (The debacle of an interview Peterson recently did with that broad on Canadian TV is a prime example). Those things completely shut down conversation and learning. Rather Rubin simply asked people to follow up and elucidate more and go into more detail. That's not to say he didn't call someone out when he thought they were talking BS.
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 5428
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 247 times
Been thanked: 259 times

Re: Ideology

Postby DreadNaught » Tue Feb 13, 2018 4:00 pm

Good point about Peterson and Harris. JP was on Harris's podcast a while ago and it was tough for them have a conversation at times because the different approaches they take to arrive at the same point. They actually agree on alot, but the reasons they agree and how they got there are quite different and it fascinating to listen to.

Those two are getting together again at some event up in Canada soon. I'll be sure to link the audio once it's available.

But yeah, shortly after the election I cleansed my social media of all politcal commentary. That **** is just a cesspool these days full of angry people shouting at one another or into their own echo chamber of lemmings. Either way nobody is listening to anybody they don't agree with in those formats so there is no real discussion taking place. So I got more into these types of podcasts to fill that void because quality of what is being said/discussed in infinitely more enlightening imo.
Image
User avatar
DreadNaught
 
Posts: 12018
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:18 am
Has thanked: 500 times
Been thanked: 521 times

Re: Ideology

Postby Buc2 » Tue Feb 13, 2018 5:01 pm

DreadNaught wrote:Good point about Peterson and Harris. JP was on Harris's podcast a while ago and it was tough for them have a conversation at times because the different approaches they take to arrive at the same point. They actually agree on alot, but the reasons they agree and how they got there are quite different and it fascinating to listen to.

Those two are getting together again at some event up in Canada soon. I'll be sure to link the audio once it's available.

But yeah, shortly after the election I cleansed my social media of all politcal commentary. That **** is just a cesspool these days full of angry people shouting at one another or into their own echo chamber of lemmings. Either way nobody is listening to anybody they don't agree with in those formats so there is no real discussion taking place. So I got more into these types of podcasts to fill that void because quality of what is being said/discussed in infinitely more enlightening imo.

This is good stuff, but it doesn't do jack to sway or educate the masses because they'll never listen.

2018 will be no different than any past election year:
Oh...he's an R. I'm not voting for him! Instead I'll just vote for the corrupt D again and vice versa just so you D's don't think I'm picking on you. That, or it will be, Oh! I've seen his name. Never heard of this other guy. **** 'em. I'll just vote for the name I know.
Image
Don't tread on me
User avatar
Buc2
 
Posts: 10414
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:16 pm
Location: America
Has thanked: 883 times
Been thanked: 359 times

Re: Ideology

Postby DreadNaught » Mon Feb 26, 2018 10:06 am

So I was reading some articles from Ayn Rand over the weekend. It certainly appeals to my Conservative/Libertarian bias but articulated the argument of individualism freedom vs collectivism very well. This lady was way ahead of here time.

The original article that caught my interest was shared via The Cato Research Institute;

In a letter written on March 19, 1944, Ayn Rand remarked: “Fascism, Nazism, Communism and Socialism are only superficial variations of the same monstrous theme—collectivism.” Rand would later expand on this insight in various articles, most notably in two of her lectures at the Ford Hall Forum in Boston: “The Fascist New Frontier” (Dec. 16, 1962, published as a booklet by the Nathaniel Branden Institute in 1963); and “The New Fascism: Rule by Consensus” (April 18, 1965, published as Chapter 20 in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal [CUI] by New American Library in 1967).

Rand knew better than to accept the traditional left-right dichotomy between socialism (or communism) and fascism, according to which socialism is the extreme version of left-ideology and fascism is the extreme version of right-ideology (i.e., capitalism). Indeed, in The Ayn Rand Letter (Nov. 8, 1971) she characterized fascism as “socialism for big business.” Both are variants of statism, in contrast to a free country based on individual rights and laissez-faire capitalism. As Rand put it in “Conservativism: An Obituary” (CUI, Chapter 19):

The world conflict of today is the conflict of the individual against the state, the same conflict that has been fought throughout mankind’s history. The names change, but the essence—and the results—remain the same, whether it is the individual against feudalism, or against absolute monarchy, or against communism or fascism or Nazism or socialism or the welfare state.

The placement of socialism and fascism at opposite ends of a political spectrum serves a nefarious purpose, according to Rand. It serves to buttress the case that we must avoid “extremism” and choose the sensible middle course of a “mixed economy.” Quoting from “‘Extremism,’ Or The Art of Smearing” (CUI, Chapter 17):

If it were true that dictatorship is inevitable and that fascism and communism are the two “extremes” at the opposite ends of our course, then what is the safest place to choose? Why, the middle of the road. The safely undefined, indeterminate, mixed-economy, “moderate” middle—with a “moderate” amount of government favors and special privileges to the rich and a “moderate” amount of government handouts to the poor—with a “moderate” respect for rights and a “moderate” degree of brute force—with a “moderate” amount of freedom and a “moderate” amount of slavery—with a “moderate” degree of justice and a “moderate” degree of injustice—with a “moderate” amount of security and a “moderate” amount of terror—and with a moderate degree of tolerance for all, except those “extremists” who uphold principles, consistency, objectivity, morality and who refuse to compromise.

In both of her major articles on fascism (cited above) Rand distinguished between fascism and socialism by noting a rather technical (and ultimately inconsequential) difference in their approaches to private property. Here is the relevant passage from “The New Fascism: Rule by Consensus”:

Observe that both “socialism” and “fascism” involve the issue of property rights. The right to property is the right of use and disposal. Observe the difference in those two theories: socialism negates private property rights altogether, and advocates “the vesting of ownership and control” in the community as a whole, i.e., in the state; fascism leaves ownership in the hands of private individuals, but transfers control of the property to the government.

Ownership without control is a contradiction in terms: it means “property,” without the right to use it or to dispose of it. It means that the citizens retain the responsibility of holding property, without any of its advantages, while the government acquires all the advantages without any of the responsibility.

In this respect, socialism is the more honest of the two theories. I say “more honest,” not “better”—because, in practice, there is no difference between them: both come from the same collectivist-statist principle, both negate individual rights and subordinate the individual to the collective, both deliver the livelihood and the lives of the citizens into the power of an omnipotent government —and the differences between them are only a matter of time, degree, and superficial detail, such as the choice of slogans by which the rulers delude their enslaved subjects.


Contrary to many conservative commentators during the 1960s, Rand maintained that America was drifting toward fascism, not socialism, and that this descent was virtually inevitable in a mixed economy. “A mixed economy is an explosive, untenable mixture of two opposite elements,” freedom and statism, “which cannot remain stable, but must ultimately go one way or the other” (“‘Extremism,’ or The Art of Smearing”). Economic controls generate their own problems, and with these problems come demands for additional controls—so either those controls must be abolished or a mixed economy will eventually degenerate into a form of economic dictatorship. Rand conceded that most American advocates of the welfare state “are not socialists, that they never advocated or intended the socialization of private property.” These welfare-statists “want to ‘preserve’ private property” while calling for greater government control over such property. “But that is the fundamental characteristic of fascism.”

Rand gave us some of the finest analyses of a mixed economy—its premises, implications, and long-range consequences—ever penned by a free-market advocate. In “The New Fascism,” for example, she compared a mixed economy to a system that operates by the law of the jungle, a system in which “no one’s interests are safe, everyone’s interests are on a public auction block, and anything goes for anyone who can get away with it.” A mixed economy divides a country “into an ever-growing number of enemy camps, into economic groups fighting one another for self preservation in an indeterminate mixture of defense and offense.” Although Rand did not invoke Thomas Hobbes in this context, it is safe to say that the economic “chaos” of a mixed economy resembles the Hobbesian war of all against all in a state of nature, a system in which interest groups feel the need to screw others before they get screwed themselves.

A mixed economy is ruled by pressure groups. It is an amoral, institutionalized civil war of special interests and lobbies, all fighting to seize a momentary control of the legislative machinery, to extort some special privilege at one another’s expense by an act of government—i.e., by force.

Of course, Rand never claimed that America had degenerated into full-blown fascism (she held that freedom of speech was a bright line in this respect), but she did believe that the fundamental premise of the “altruist-collectivist” morality—the foundation of all collectivist regimes, including fascism—was accepted and preached by modern liberals and conservatives alike. (Those who mistakenly dub Rand a “conservative” should read “Conservatism: An Obituary” [CUI, Chapter 19], a scathing critique in which she accused conservative leaders of “moral treason.” In some respects Rand detested modern conservatives more than she did modern liberals. She was especially contemptuous of those conservatives who attempted to justify capitalism by appealing to religion or to tradition.) Rand illustrated her point in “The Fascist New Frontier,” a polemical tour de force aimed at President Kennedy and his administration.

Rand began this 1962 lecture by quoting passages from the 1920 political platform of the German Nazi Party, including demands for “an end to the power of the financial interests,” “profit sharing in big business,” “a broad extension of care for the aged,” the “improvement of public health” by government, “an all-around enlargement of our entire system of public education,” and so forth. All such welfare-state measures, this platform concluded, “can only proceed from within on the foundation of “The Common Good Before the Individual Good.”

Rand had no problem quoting similar proposals and sentiments from President Kennedy and members of his administration, such as Kennedy’s celebrated remark, “And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what America will do for you [sic]—ask what you can do for your country.” The particulars of Rand’s speech will come as no surprise to those familiar with her ideas, but I wish to call attention to her final remarks about the meaning of “the public interest.” As used by Kennedy and other politicians, both Democratic and Republican, this fuzzy phrase has little if any meaning, except to indicate that individuals have a duty to sacrifice their interests for the sake of a greater, undefined good, as determined by those who wield the brute force of political power. Rand then stated what she regarded as the only coherent meaning of “the public interest.”

There is no such thing as ‘the public interest’ except as the sum of the interests of individual men. And the basic, common interest of all men—all rational men—is freedom. Freedom is the first requirement of “the public interest”—not what men do when they are free, but that they are free. All their achievements rest on that foundation—and cannot exist without them.

The principles of a free, non-coercive social system are the only form of “the public interest.”


I shall conclude this essay on a personal note. Before I began preparing for this essay, I had not read some of the articles quoted above for many, many years. In fact, I had not read some of the material since my college days 45 years ago. I therefore approached my new readings with a certain amount of trepidation. I liked the articles when I first read them, but would they stand the test of time? Would Rand’s insights and arguments appear commonplace, even hackneyed, with the passage of so much time? Well, I was pleasantly surprised. Rand was exactly on point on many issues. Indeed, if we substitute “President Obama” for “President Kennedy” or “President Johnson,” many of her points would be even more pertinent today than they were during the 1960s. Unfortunately, the ideological sewer of American politics has become even more foul today than it was in Rand’s day, but Rand did what she could to reverse the trend, and one person can only do so much. And no one can say that she didn’t warn us.
Image
User avatar
DreadNaught
 
Posts: 12018
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:18 am
Has thanked: 500 times
Been thanked: 521 times

Re: Ideology

Postby Zarniwoop » Mon Feb 26, 2018 10:53 am

I'm mixed on Rand. I'm very impressed with her intellectual development and the development of her positions. Like me, she seems to like to discuss first principles (the only intellectually honest thing to do IMO). Then for her to be able to think outside of the communist dogma she was fed from birth and espouse the beliefs she did is nothing short of amazing. She had foresight for how the world should work, even though she saw no examples beyond massive state control


Now the negative. I think she is a horrible writer in terms of craft. And more importantly, as she aged, she became about as hypocritical as one can get. The only book of hers that I think is remotely well written is "Virtue of Selfishness". Her novels, while having good ideas are trash.



Anyway, thanks for posting that, it was a nice read :)
Last edited by Zarniwoop on Mon Feb 26, 2018 10:55 am, edited 1 time in total.
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 5428
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 247 times
Been thanked: 259 times

Re: Ideology

Postby beardmcdoug » Mon Feb 26, 2018 10:55 am

I think Rand is naive about biology, human nature, and what humans actually do with their "freedom". Directionless capitalism caters to the lowest common denominator, promotes ugly, fleeting endeavors, and builds no capacity for anticipation of catastrophic collective action problems. She wasn't ahead of her time, because she's been consistently proven wrong by human nature over the past 50 years. Human nature slides back to pursuits of pleasure. It is only through focus, doing the hard things that require sacrifice for the greater good, that we, as a human race move forward. What are we to aspire to, a bunch of monkeys drawn to neon signs? As she beats on about collectivism, in any form, creating a false sense of freedom, she advocates for a system that, due to a naive understanding of biochemistry, is bound to produce a similar false sense of freedom, limited by the reality of human nature and time. Her pure-individualist utopia neglects to account for the glass walls that would be (and have been) created by inter-human manipulation via things like propaganda, technology, pharmaceuticals, and coercion. Her ideas work, relatively, if one or two of those exist in relative infancy in a small population, but we live in an inter-connected global world where those sort of things exist on highly sophisticated levels. Rand is prescribing a philosophical/political antidote for centuries-old worlds, in my opinion, and is, not in the least, ahead of her time.


despite disagreeing with it all, I enjoyed the read, thanks for posting

edit: jeez this thing was rife with spelling errors!!
Last edited by beardmcdoug on Mon Feb 26, 2018 12:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
beardmcdoug
 
Posts: 2783
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2016 12:30 pm
Has thanked: 328 times
Been thanked: 223 times

Re: Ideology

Postby Zarniwoop » Mon Feb 26, 2018 10:58 am

beardmcdoug wrote:I think Rand is naive about biology, human nature, and what humans actually do with their "freedom". Directionless capitalism caters to the lowest common denominator, promotes ugly, fleeting endeavors, and builds no capacity for anticipation of catastrophic collective action problems. She wasn't ahead of her time, because she's been consistently proven wrong by human nature over the past 50 years. Human nature slides back to pursuits of pleasure. It is only through focus, doing the hard things that require sacrifice for the greater good, that we, as a human race move forward. What are we to aspire to, a bunch of monkeys drawn to neon signs? As she beats on about collectism, any form, creating a false sense of freedom, she advocates for a system that, due to a naive understanding of biochemistry, is bound to produce a similar false sense of freedom, limited by the reality of human nature and time. Her pure-individualist utopia neglects to account for the glass walls that would be (and have been) created by inter-human manipulation via things like propaganda, technology, pharmaceuticals, and coercion. Her ideas work, relatively, in one or two of those exist in relative infancy in a small population, but we live in an inter-connected global world where those sort of things exist on highly sophisticated levels. Rand is prescribing a philosophical/political antidote for centuries-old worlds, in my opinion, and is, not in the least, ahead of her time.



He's back!!!!!!!!
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 5428
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 247 times
Been thanked: 259 times

PreviousNext

post

Return to Politics and Religion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: PrimeMinister and 9 guests