Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Ted Cruz

7 (6.5%)

Rick Santorum

16 (14.8%)

Michelle Bachmann

13 (12%)

Chris Christie

23 (21.3%)

Rand Paul

49 (45.4%)

Total Members Voted: 107

[FearfulJesuit]

And no... I do not believe in any movement that relies on a single organization to take charge and make change.  I believe in the development of organizational methods that make things more local and dynamic.  I believe in people directly engaging with each other to identify problems, needs, and solutions, instead of these things being dictated to them by self-interested parties sitting at the top of miles high organizational ladders.  I absolutely understand that no minority can act as a conduit for the will of the majority, and any lofty attempt at such is doomed to corruption.  The closest political label that can describe my is Social Libertarian, with a strong lean on the belief that modern communication technology should be making older forms of large scale organization obsolete.

And how do you plan for such societies to tackle large-scale problems, like pollution, global warming, etc etc? The enforcement is a huge problem there even if the decision-making process is there.
Also, quote on that life expectancy bit?

There's also my point about the fruits of the joint-stock corporation and the modern civil service state.

These two innovations alone have done amazing things for human societies. If you know of a system that incentivizes technological and societal progress better than the limited liability company and strong enforcement of contract law, say so, but to my knowledge that's the best system we've come up with. Where do you think the organizing power of modern telecommunications came from? If you'd prefer that human societies had been communitarian utopias since the dawn of time, OK, but realize that that entails that you'd probably still be a farmer. I mean, yes, it's less than optimal that a lot of people in modern societies are bored out of their minds with jobs they can't stand, but...why would a preindustrial kibbutz be any better?

[Bauglir]

Salmon... He said nothing to the contrary. "malignant, inscrutable, amorphous Powers That Be" is a pretty spot-on description for what you lined out.

This isn't some vast conspiracy by malignant, inscrutable, amorphous Powers That Be.

(Emphasis added)

He pretty explicitly did. I know this is nitpicky, but I really can't stand the degree of dishonesty going on with some of the objections going on here, and that's just the most obvious and clear-cut example.

Seriously, if you're so fooled by your own ideological blinders as to believe any criticism of modern American culture's power structure is a reasonable basis for jumping off into accusations about about hypothetical death squads or prison camps, FJ, I don't think you've got much ground for trying to pluck the splinter from anybody else's eye, to mix some metaphors clumsily. Yeah, now we've moved onto a discussion where the shit about centralization and hypocrisy in the upper echelons of a movement might conceivably be relevant - but only because you randomly insisted that all this stuff was implied by viewing modern America as a dystopia.

I completely agree that corporations are a fantastically useful power structure (but that they've been too widely applied, like all good ideas), and I completely agree that the civil service is a superb tool for maintaining a basic standard of living in a nation (but one that's increasingly underutilized, and growing increasingly susceptible to corruption). The fact that all these things can be used well and sometimes are does jack and shit to detract from the fact that they rarely are, and that unfortunate feedback loops have bloated select slices of society to a degree that is completely unsustainable, at the expense of the rest of it. The fact that I have the luxury of sitting at a computer and arguing about politics over the Internet does not change the lives of millions who can't, and that I had to win the fucking genetic lottery to get everything I have.

I disagree with SG about what would be an ideal system, but, miraculously, I'm perfectly capable of agreeing with his assessment of the reality in which we find ourselves. And we didn't get into this talk of ideals until you pretended it was relevant.

You're very good at pretending that a defense of what could be true should somehow serve as an attack on a perspective about what is. The fact that good things exist does not magically wipe away the problems that are actually facing the world, and relentless optimism will not solve anything - and that's why I can't take your philosophy seriously.

[FearfulJesuit]

Look, I agree that many of his criticisms are valid. Yes, modern corporate capitalism is filled to the brim with perverse incentives. Yes, American society is in a state of decline.

That's still no excuse for overapplying the term "dystopia" to the point of meaninglessness (if the modern West is a dystopia, what society hasn't been?) and insisting that penicillin and laptops and sanitation have some sort of moral obligation to pop into existence while the organizations and systems that create them are, always and everywhere, cartoon supervillains that must be eliminated as soon as possible. It's just delusional to think that humans can operate, want to operate, or should operate this way.

[Angle]

Y'know what I think we might benefit from? If we each went around and clarified our positions. Because honestly? I can't seriously claim that I know what anyone here other than myself believes in any kind of meaningful detail. I'm relatively sure that SalmonGod is some kind of moderate liberal, and FearfulJesuit is some kind of conservative, but that's about it.

[Bauglir]

(if the modern West is a dystopia, what society hasn't been?)

Virtually every society prior to the dawn of the radio, I'd say. Like you, I'm in favor of avoiding dilution of the term "dystopia". It's a very specific kind of shitty society - it's not synonymous with a certain level of badness, or even overt oppression. In a dystopia, it's not that people are forbidden to express discontent with the rulers. It's that they're unwilling or unable to do so, regardless of their discontent. There's no need for death squads kicking in your doors and locking you away in camps.

In a dystopia, a revolution is inconceivable, not because it would be suppressed as soon as it became public, but because it can never coalesce into a viable social movement in the first place. Getting back to my radio comment, I'm of the view that there's simply never been the kind of technology required to supply all the ingredients you need for that sort of thing until the modern era. That's not to say I hate technology - I fucking love it. It's just that dystopia's a risk you run when communication technology reaches a certain degree of sophistication, just as a computer virus is a risk you run once computers become a thing. You need to be vigilant.

For what it's worth, at this point my life plan is basically to spend the next half decade busting my ass to become useful enough to the system that my soul's worth selling, so that I can spend the next several decades working to maybe get into the position to one day possibly offer somebody with actual power some good advice. I have no delusions of some broad, sweeping social revolution, and I completely understand that we live in a world where shit doesn't get done just because it would be nice if it did. I'm pretty sure SG understands that, too.

I'm not too competent to speculate on what he does or does not believe, but "cartoon supervillains" doesn't really characterize his fairly reasonable viewpoint of ordinary self-interest and disconnection from the rest of the world making decisions that, in tandem, are mildly to severely catastrophic. Tragedy of the Commons is pretty straightforward stuff. He's also pretty clear about preferring people to keep on working to make things like penicillin and laptops and sanitation continue to appear - it's about the social mechanism by which they do so becoming decentralized. I'm not necessarily on board with all this stuff, so I won't get too far into it, but it's not nearly as childish as you're making it out to be.

EDIT: Okay, so I'm basically pretty convinced that the economic system we've got right now is something of a dinosaur frantically scrambling to prevent its own extinction. It's not that capitalism is obsolete or corporations are inherently scum, it's just that the major economic players have failed pretty hard at adapting to the sheer volume of information that exists. This is most blatantly obvious in intellectual property law, which pretends that information still has monetary worth. But the point is, we've wound up in a situation where the system is largely regulated by the people it's supposed to regulate, and who have very strong incentives to use their power to protect their continued access to power. This does not gel very well with a reality that is rapidly changing to make untrue some core assumptions that put these people in power in the first place - and they're very smart people, capable of realizing this.

So, what we have now is a consequence of feedback loops that need to not exist. The fundamental building blocks of the economy are fine, and absolutely need to be maintained. Likewise, I have no problem with the fairly inevitable emergence of social classes. We just need to keep people from being in a position where they're making decisions between helping themselves, and helping the rest of their society. I'll be honest - I have not mapped out a very practical application of this sort of thing. Splitting up political power in a way that keeps it from being self-reinforcing, prevents the conversion of other types of power into political power, and protects the power of small groups to defend themselves without giving them the power to impose themselves on larger groups is an outrageously difficult project. I don't think we'll ever see such a system within my lifetime, so I don't consider it worth bothering - it'd easily be a multi-year project, so it's just not worth it beyond the broad strokes.

MORE EDIT: Note that I'm not talking about any kind of conspiracy or cackling aristocrat. It's just straight-up "This wording of the law would be good for my stockholders", compounded hundreds of times.

[FearfulJesuit]

Center-left reactionary...conservative (and conservative in its original sense, not the parody that the modern American GOP has made of it) by nature, but too sane to be a modern "conservative". I want universal healthcare, strong environmental protection and, ideally, a basic income at some point in the future (I don't think it's affordable now). I also recognize (mobile, but distinct) social divisions, the well-regulated corporation, and modern parliamentary republicanism for what they are- the right and natural order of things, which have provided the great bulk of progress for the last few centuries and will continue to do so if they are reformed and maintained as needed.

[Angle]

what sense are you using reactionary in, there? The definition I found, "opposing political or social liberalization or reform", wouldn't seem to mesh well with the liberalizing reforms you listed. Are there other reforms you are opposed to?

[Bauglir]

Yeah, in terms of actual things that can happen, I'm with FJ on all those things, although I think "the right and natural order of things" is a bit much. Better than any order of things we've ever had before, but I'd say that the fact that we took so long to get there rules out "natural", and "right" is pretty suspect if you want my take on philosophy.

[SalmonGod]

Er...yes? He's established that he's an anarchist several times, and has stated point-blank that he'd like to have corporations, the government, and organized religion done away with and replaced entirely with a brand new social order. That fits the bill.

That's where the frustrated part comes in. "<x> is so <y>! I wish it would just disappear!" is the classic exclamation of the frustrated person. I'm willing to bet that if you gave him a button that'd have corporations, the government, and organized religion disappear completely, he wouldn't push it.

This is something I struggle with.  I know that sudden revolution or otherwise destructive means are not a productive way to bring about change.  If people don't understand another way to conduct their lives, they'll just go right back to the way they do understand.  This is something I've understood since my late teens.  My stock response to any statement about ends justifying means is to point out that even if true, the ends will inherit the character of the means.

BUT... I also believe that the environment is a tremendously dire issue, and I just might push that button as a way to buy time on that point... even though I really do understand that there would be other horrible repercussions.

And how do you plan for such societies to tackle large-scale problems, like pollution, global warming, etc etc? The enforcement is a huge problem there even if the decision-making process is there.

This is only a matter of enforcement when there are incentives encouraging people to ignore these problems or any related agreements.  This is why I'm anti-capitalist.

Also, quote on that life expectancy bit?

I'm having trouble finding a definitive link to share, but it's something I've been hearing since I was a kid.

As I understand, the increase in lifespans over the 20th century was because of two major factors: agriculture and medicine, but especially antibiotics.  Antibiotics are decreasing in effectiveness, while infections are increasing in severity.  As someone who's been hit by two staph infections, one which hospitalized me for nearly two weeks, I've been hit by this quite personally.  Then there are our increasingly sedentary lifestyles leading to all kinds of problems, and skyrocketing rates of obesity, cancer, and stress.  And if something doesn't fundamentally change, wealth inequality will continue to shunt a larger and larger portion of the population out from participation in the economy and into extreme poverty, where life expectancy is quite low even in the modern world.  It's hard for me to believe that the average will continue to increase, and I can easily find articles and studies discussing decreases in certain areas and disturbing trends.  Just nothing that directly states with any authority "millennials aren't going to live as long as their parents."  The medical advances on the horizon are incredible, but I'm not banking on them being available to the majority within an appreciable time frame.

-stuff-

Thank you.  I've been busy the last couple hours and not had the time to write up the responses this discussion deserves, and it's really difficult to wriggle out of the corner that FJ's method puts me in anyway.  As you sort of explained, I'm simultaneously obligated to describe my complete ideological belief about everything to avoid negative associations, and to defend my use of the word dystopia as not applied to anything other than a state where everyone's a slave whose life is forfeit if they blink without permission.  It's a very loaded situation to be in.

Reasons I view present reality as dystopian in nature

--Largest prison population in the history of the planet, the majority of them ruined lives for minor offenses, many that arguably shouldn't even be considered crimes, because of a prison industry that operates for profit.
--The most overwhelming and invasive surveillance infrastructure in the history of the planet.  Maybe not put to the most obviously nefarious uses, but definitely corrupt.
--Possibly the worst economic inequality in modern history, and continually worsening -- yes, I know that most Americans are materially well off in spite of this due to superpower status and technology, but the portion of people enjoying that benefit is continually shrinking.
--Environment in the beginning stages of catastrophic meltdown, likely leading to a state in the relatively near future that will dramatically impact the sustainability of modern civilization.
--Rising rates of debilitating and terminal illness caused by increasing pollution, stress, and food additives, coupled with rising medical costs and a corrupt pharmaceutical industry.
--Massively corrupt and violent law enforcement.  Not even going to bother going into more description.
--Peaceful protest is violently suppressed almost without exception, and the law is blatantly used to punish any exposure of corruption.
--Anti-depressants currently the most commonly prescribed drug.


And FJ, the words "right and natural order of things" as applied to any social construct sets off the same sorts of alarms for me as leftist revolutionary buzzwords do for you.

I understand that corporations have produced plenty of good things, but they also prevent plenty of good things and produce plenty of bad things.  And I don't understand why only corporations could produce the good things that they do.  My perspective on them is the same as with capitalism in general.  When none have too much weight to throw around, they're likely to engage in more honest competition and focus on producing good things.  When any gets too large, it becomes easier for their to compete by corner cutting and sabotage than by pursuing honest progress.  There either has to be a built in limit or period reset button on the whole thing to keep it working as intended, but there's no good way to do that.  Even with regulations, the whole purpose of a corporation is to make profit.  Making profit = getting bigger/more influential/beating competition = eventually having the power to subvert regulations.  You can't beat that without taking profit out of the equation.

And I have acknowledged many times on this forum that all history's more centralized methods of organization were necessary to get us where we are today, due to limitations in communications technology.  Organic, memetic flow of information has until recently been too slow and inefficient to get a population working together well enough to produce progress.  I understand that mass communications would not exist today without that stuff.  But it's a major crux of my perspective that regardless, mass communications have reached the point of making centralized methods of organization much less necessary, if not obsolete.  We also wouldn't have the computers we have today without the computers we had in the past, but we still don't recommend running Windows 3.1 on a modern machine.  It isn't designed to make proper use of current hardware, and that's exactly how I view society.  We've massively upgraded our hardware, as in people's ability to connect with each other, but we're not upgrading our operating system to keep pace.

MORE EDIT: Note that I'm not talking about any kind of conspiracy or cackling aristocrat. It's just straight-up "This wording of the law would be good for my stockholders", compounded hundreds of times.

This.  While we have plenty of conspiracies in modern day like cover-ups by law enforcement, NSA shenanigans, or lies used to build war efforts, I see those things as very much a minority in what I consider to qualify as conspiracy because it includes the above.  That is what I mean when I'm talking about a disconnected, privileged minority investing in self-interests that they happen to share.  The revolving door building up privilege and influence for those who already have it.

[Angle]

My views are somewhat more complicated, and I'm sleepy, so I'll write them out tomorrow.

[scriver]

I also recognize (mobile, but distinct) social divisions, the well-regulated corporation, and modern parliamentary republicanism for what they are- the right and natural order of things, which have provided the great bulk of progress for the last few centuries and will continue to do so if they are reformed and maintained as needed.

Wow. After the tirades you've gone on against SalmonGod over the last page you write this. I'm not sure if it's hilarious or just sadly ironic.

[Lord Shonus]

Except for people with genuine clinical depression, I don't know any Americans who aren't generally happy, outside of temporary situations such as mild illness or grief because of loss.

[Helgoland]

Spoiler: A retort, not conducive to discussion (click to show/hide)

Salmon... He said nothing to the contrary. "malignant, inscrutable, amorphous Powers That Be" is a pretty spot-on description for what you lined out.

This isn't some vast conspiracy by malignant, inscrutable, amorphous Powers That Be.

(Emphasis added)

He pretty explicitly did. I know this is nitpicky, but I really can't stand the degree of dishonesty going on with some of the objections going on here, and that's just the most obvious and clear-cut example.

I was referring to the "sacrificing babies" bit. If you're going to call something an obvious and clear-cut example of dishonesty, make sure it is in fact not true.

And how do you plan for such societies to tackle large-scale problems, like pollution, global warming, etc etc? The enforcement is a huge problem there even if the decision-making process is there.

This is only a matter of enforcement when there are incentives encouraging people to ignore these problems or any related agreements.  This is why I'm anti-capitalist.

Do you believe these incentives to only exist in capitalism? For example, take driving: Even in a non-capitalist society, I'll still want to go places, polluting the environment and accelerating global warming in the process. On a larger scale, a (community-owned) coal plant would do the same thing. Overfishing is practically impossible to avoidd without global regulations. There are hundreds of additional examples; am I missing something in your train of thought?

[SalmonGod]

On the subject of driving, if workers weren't squeezed the way they are and everybody generally had more time due to a reduction in bullshit work and jumping through hoops, there would be less need for driving everywhere to save time.  We'd also have better public transport, especially trains, if commercial forces weren't driving urban sprawl and the auto industry hadn't actively sabotaged trains to increase their own business.

I also believe we would have moved past coal already if it wasn't so difficult to dethrone such a powerful industry that will feel the need to defend itself against positive changes, because people don't want to lose their jobs.

Overfishing is a more difficult one, but at least it would be easier to convince large-scale commercial fishers to adopt more responsible methods that cause less collateral damage to the environment and such if they don't have to worry about profit margins and driving down prices.

And it would be easier to convince everyone of the need and methods to be responsible, if industries weren't pouring huge amounts of money into anti-science propaganda.

[Helgoland]

That does not really explain why these things are such a problem in Europe as well... Climate change is a widely accepted fact, and environmental policies are a given for every party - the Greens are the third-most important party around here. There is no industry-sponsored anti-science propaganda either, and still we haven't stopped emitting greenhouse gasses on our own.