Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)

[Old Man]

I doubt that to be the case, and even if it is, how would one prove it?

 

Preagricultural societies, such as the Kalahari Bushmen and certain Native American tribes, have been documented as not really having personal property and certainly having no concept of land ownership.

[DShomshak]

Now, socialism. Warning: long and a bit dry, but let us see what the Dictionary of Political Thought has to say in defining socialism, without trying to argue whether it’s good or bad.

 

As a purely economic doctrine, I’ve been told that socialism simply means that the state exerts some control over the means of production and distribution. One should probably add: For conscious pursuit of social or political goals. After all, in Medieval Europe the feudal aristocracy controlled the principle means of production — land — but this was not for some conscious program of social engineering, so I don’t think it would be fair to call manorialism “socialist.”

 

Scruton notes that, as with so many political terms, “socialism” is a wide term. He sees two principle, though related meanings:

 

First, “In Marxian theory and official communist language… the means of production are taken into social ownership, and the state persists as an administrative machine, upholding a new order of legality, and a new system of rights, in such a way as to permit the emergence of true common ownership, and the eventual abolition of the state.” I.e., the state owns everything in the name of the workers and peasants, with the promise that it will eventually become superfluous and the workers and peasants will own and control everything themselves — but in common, not individually.

 

(Scruton wrote his dictionary in 1982. Leaving aside the morality of socialism as practiced by the USSR and others, we may say this “hard-core socialism” has not fared well in experimental trials.)

 

In a second meaning, socialism is a philosophical and political doctrine that includes “a broad and comprehensive outlook on the human condition.” It’s also conceived as permanent, rather than a transitional stage to some future utopia. This broader interpretation of socialism is based on three postulates:

 

1) Equality: Equal opportunity as well as equal rights under law, with an eye toward equalizing outcomes for individuals. “The main consideration is that human beings have equal rights, since they are equal in every way relevant to those rights.”

 

2) The state as administrator: “The state is seen, not as the legal and ceremonial representation of civil society, but rather as a complex administrative device, designed to guarantee individual rights, and to distribute benefits among the citizens in accordance with those rights.” It must “provide and maintain the institutions which ensure that human goods — food, medicine, education, recreation — are made available to everybody on terms hat are as equal as possible.” But the state is not an end in itself; and it should not be used to propagate “religious doctrine, or nationalist ideology.” It is a powerful tool, but just a tool.

 

3) Elimination of systems of control. Class systems, hereditary privileges, and other means by which people control and compel each other violate the principle of equal rights, and so are unjust.

 

Private property receives special mention: “Private property is permissible, but only insofar as it does not amount to a system of control.” While “Type 2 Socialists” reject the hard-core Marxian condemnation of all private property as a means of privilege and control, and may believe that private property is a legitimate expectation of citizens in a well-ordered society, socialists do think that vast concentrations of wealth and property can harm the interests of society and the citizens. “Hence, the state must always be ready to nationalize major assets, and should curtail or forbid the transactions that lead to large-scale private accumulation — such as gifts and inheritance.”

 

As Scruton notes, socialism has a long and natural affiliation with labor movements, “for the obvious reason that, while it promises very little and threatens much to the class of property owners, it promises much and threatens little, or seems to threaten little, to the workers.”

 

He also notes that under Western parliamentary government, socialism has shown it can be implemented pragmatically, democratically and with compromise, without attempting to impose any of the three underlying principles in pure form. Some even say “this ‘parliamentary road to socialism’ is in fact a creature so different from the socialism of the communist state as to be only misleadingly called by the same name.”

 

Criticisms of “Type 2 socialism” reject one or more of its postulates, or see contradictions between them. For instance, some people insist that 1) is wrong and all people are not and should not be equal under law.

 

Some thinkers argue that the state must be treated as an end in itself in order to obtain the loyalty of the people: As a pure service-provider “it comes to seem arbitary and dispensable, and therefore holds increasing power with increasing instability.”

 

Other critics see a conflict between 2) and 3), arguing that the all-pervading power of the state merely creates another self-interested élite. It is also argued that the ideal of “social justice” that runs through 1) and 3) is “incompatible with the assertion of natural rights and freedoms.”

 

I don’t see anything monstrous in this “type 2 socialism.” Arguable, either in theory or practice, but nothing outside the normal bounds of rational discourse. In fact, I accept postulate 1) without reservation; and I agree with postulate 2) with reservations (I see the state as a rational machine for achieving practical goals, but accept to achieve those goals it may need to pretend to some greater majesty. One may also question the implicit assumption that the state is the *only* institution to fulfill this distributive and administrative function). 3) seems to be where the practical difficulties seem greatest, though I appreciate the goal. It’s a bad joke to talk of “rights” and “freedom” to people who are externally constrained by poverty, racism, etc. from being able to exercise them.

 

So that's Scruton. I don't claim any special authority for his dictionary, but it's the one I found for cheap at Goodwill so it's the one I use.

 

Dean Shomshak

[megaplayboy]

I'm more of a John Rawls guy myself.

[Tech priest support]

I want socialism to weaken capitalism and keep it from becoming all powerful. I want capitalism to weaken socialism and keep it from becoming all powerful.

 

 

https://youtu.be/ohRiNE8GcHU

[Sociotard]

So, I had a little positive feedback for my pet theory that divided governments are more likely to yield smaller deficits and smaller government than united Republican or Democratic governments.  I thought I'd try putting it into graphs and and article, and maybe shop it to a few political magazines? I know some of them take submissions.

 

I wondered if maybe you guys could review my graphs and tell me, harsh truth, if they need something more?

 

Recap: I think that it is more 'fair' to look at the rate of change per year for deficits. The federal government is a big, cumbersome thing, and it can't change outlays or taxation quickly. If there is a big deficit one year, it is likely the next year will have a deficit too.  But, we can look at the rate of change of the deficit; how fast the deficit grows or shrinks in a year is a fair judge of that years government.

 

So I was going to start with a chart of the deficit over the last two administrations, and a second one that showed it being translated into rate-of-change (derivative with respect to time for the calculus inclined. I originally called it that, but the style guide said to avoid scientific terms)

Deficit Over Two Presidencies.bmpChange in Deficit Over Two Presidencies.bmp

 

That section showed united Republican, united Democratic, and divided governments. It showed that the united governments were more likely to grow the deficit and divided governments were more likely to reduce it. It also showed exceptions to that trend. Next I was going to drive the point home with graphs that showed how the median rates of change lined up.

Key.bmp

Deficit_Constant.bmp

Deficit_GDP.bmp

Outlays_Constant.bmp

Outlays_GDP.bmp

Receipts_Constant.bmp

Receipts_GDP.bmp

 

I'm also putting together a graph for Federal employees (fewer government employees means smaller government) and maybe, if I can figure it out, Words in the Federal Code (longer federal code means smaller government)

 

First, though, I wanted to get your take on whether the graphs were at all understandable? I know showing the 20,40,60, and 80th percentiles is unconventional. 25th and 75th is more the norm. But I like these and think they show the shape of the data. But I shouldn't shoot my article in the foot over my silly affectations if it just doesn't work.

 

Thoughts?

[Sociotard]

Well, I couldn't get the attached images to display.  Odd.  Maybe someone could point me to a FAQ about that?  Anyway, I stuck them on my flickr so I could share. Lets try this

 

 

[megaplayboy]

So, the threat posed by North Korea just went up an order of magnitude.  They claim to have a hydrogen bomb, but even if it's only a boosted fission device, that's still a big increase in yield.  Estimates for the yield from their 6th test range between 120 kilotons and a megaton.  Now's probably a good time to ramp down the apocalyptic rhetoric.  

[csyphrett]

Trump shut down funding for Obamacare signups fri

CES

[Iuz the Evil]

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/08/31/health/affordable-care-act-trump-spending.html

 

Makes me glad California opted to run their own marketplace "Covered California" instead of relying on Healthcare.gov, though at the time I had mixed feelings. Turns out that was a good call.

 

What a crappy thing to do.

[pinecone]

Well, looks like I got out just in time, I'm now on Medicare, so I'm "OK" till next month at least....      

[Iuz the Evil]

It's reducing system navigators and advertising to increase awareness. Didn't see any actual insurance product reduction when I looked, and not sure they can do that without congress actually. Be in court for sure.

[Tech priest support]

One issue in american politics is how a few people now control the media after the right has repealed laws meant to keep that from happeni g.

 

I remember when Obama was president and fox news criticized and attacked every single thing he did. They attacked him for liking grey poupon on his hamburgers. Fox news called for his impeachment because he accepted a nobel prize. He was attacked the way his daughters dressed.

 

Now that we have that thing in the white house, fox news' coverage is more like what is portrayed below.

 

I hope most European countries don't let a few moguls dominate the media. Well, I've heard Rupert Murdoch has near total control of the media in Australia. When the media is controlled by the few it becomes political propaganda without criticism.

[Pattern Ghost]

I hate to be a wet blanket*, but a cartoon pointing out how stupid someone is, shouldn't have a stupid punch line. Consumers have always been allowed to remove the tags from mattresses. The tags' warning is to the seller of the mattress.

 

*

Not really.   

 

[Lord Liaden]

Neither cartoon Trump nor cartoon Carlson knowing that, would actually support the point.

[Pattern Ghost]

Sure, but me knowing it totally throws me out of the gag, which up until then had been about actually stupid and dangerous things, not common misconceptions.

[Nolgroth]

Is that Mandela Effect hitting me again, because I remember 8 years or so where the most of the news agencies practically worshiped President Obama. This is really nothing new. Left-leaning media supports Left-leaning political figures and Right- leaning media supports Right-leaning political figures. That same cartoon above could have easily been about Obama and CNN. I guess I just don't get the angst. 

[wcw43921]

Sure, but me knowing it totally throws me out of the gag, which up until then had been about actually stupid and dangerous things, not common misconceptions.

 

So you have been OK then, with Trump using a fork to get a slice of bread out of a toaster?

[Pattern Ghost]

So you have been OK then, with Trump using a fork to get a slice of bread out of a toaster?

 

You get it!

[Nolgroth]

So you have been OK then, with Trump using a fork to get a slice of bread out of a toaster?

 

Wait! There's a problem with using a fork to get a slice of bread out of a toaster? Why wasn't I informed of this!?

 

[Pattern Ghost]

Wait! There's a problem with using a fork to get a slice of bread out of a toaster? Why wasn't I informed of this!?

 

 

Everyone knows it's better to use a butter knife. That way the knife's warm for spreading the butter on the toast.

[Tech priest support]

Is that Mandela Effect hitting me again, because I remember 8 years or so where the most of the news agencies practically worshiped President Obama. This is really nothing new. Left-leaning media supports Left-leaning political figures and Right- leaning media supports Right-leaning political figures. That same cartoon above could have easily been about Obama and CNN. I guess I just don't get the angst.

Well I have to dksagree. I remember a lot of people on the left criticizing Obama for various things. Of course the right attacked him for EVERYTHING.

 

Really the so called left media in america isn't a one sided propaganda machine, but the right wing media seems to be. I've noticed how a lot of the critics of the so called "leftist media" make it a point to brag that they never watch "that garbage" and yet claim to know all about it.

 

Bill Maher is a demigod of the left and he has attacked left leaders and media for years when he felt then had it coming. So with John Stewart.

 

Comparing the left and right media is the old false equivelancy thing. And when it comes to right wing media remember that roger ailes said the truth was whatever he could get people to believe.

[Sociotard]

It really depends on the right wing media in question. I can't speak to Fox or Breitbart or whatever, but National Review and American Conservative frequently oppose him, and generally serve as lukewarm apologists for Trump at most. 

[Michael Hopcroft]

It really depends on the right wing media in question. I can't speak to Fox or Breitbart or whatever, but National Review and American Conservative frequently oppose him, and generally serve as lukewarm apologists for Trump at most. 

There are different strains of American Conservatism (and, for that matter, American Liberalism). The magazines cited above represent a more intellectual approach (I saw William J. Buckley speak once, when I was on college. Man did he have a huge vocabulary.), while Fox and Breitbart (from what I've heard, as I've never read Breitbart) act out of a great distrust of intellectialism even on the Right. Nuance is weakness -- you are either right or wrong with no middle ground.

 

That is the very definition of alt-right. It makes no allowances for deviation from a fixed ideological norm that never changes.

[Nolgroth]

Well I have to dksagree. I remember a lot of people on the left criticizing Obama for various things. Of course the right attacked him for EVERYTHING.

 

Comparing the left and right media is the old false equivelancy thing. And when it comes to right wing media remember that roger ailes said the truth was whatever he could get people to believe.

 

It's only "false" because of personal bias. Whatever. The phrase "false equivalency" is already becoming a tired refuge for the Left to hide behind. I could argue that Fox News and Rush Limbaugh are stringent Trump supporters but he has his detractors on the Right as well. Some of the Far Right criticize him for not being Conservative enough or for tangling too much in foreign affairs or for....the list goes on. I could call out the portrayal of all Right-wing media being devout fanatics in the Cult of Trump's personality as an outright false narrative. I could do that, but it isn't going to change hearts and minds. Quite frankly I have better things to spend my energy on. I am not a Trump supporter so I am not going to engage on his behalf. No horse in that race. Obama, who I never cared for, is no longer President and attacking him is not necessary. Whatever good or ill he did for the nation is done. Arguing about relative press relations is a pointless venture from my point of view. I stand by the statement in the message you quoted and I'll leave it at that. I rather like to continue having our non-political discussions stay friendly and politics has a way of creating rifts where there should not be any.

 

Come to think of it, barring any specific legislation that would negatively impact my life, this whole presidential term is kind of a wash for me. I should really focus on other pursuits anyway.

[Lucius]

Is that Mandela Effect hitting me again, because I remember 8 years or so where the most of the news agencies practically worshiped President Obama. This is really nothing new. Left-leaning media supports Left-leaning political figures and Right- leaning media supports Right-leaning political figures. That same cartoon above could have easily been about Obama and CNN. I guess I just don't get the angst. 

I'm sure there's some confirmation bias at work, but at least early in his presidency there seemed to be a kind of messianic aura about Obama where some people were concerned. So no, it's not just you. I remember remarking how heavily mythologized our last president was.

 

A major difference I note is that as far as I could see Obama never encouraged that kind of apotheosized image, but I get the impression Trump may have swallowed the hype whole.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary advises me to avoid this thread, but surely the occasional post won't hurt...will it?

 

Lucius Alexander