|
Post by Russell Letson on Apr 23, 2015 20:11:03 GMT -5
Bruce, you do realize that a dictionary is not necessarily the, um, last word on a topic, right? And that there might be more to an historically complex notion than what fits into the few dozen words of a dictionary entry? And that since its first appearance (in 1839, according to the OED) the term has been applied to a range of political-economic arrangements and theories? It's not a word for a tightly-definable entity (circle, square, snowflake, water) or an absolute (binary, dead, indivisible, unique). It is, however, a word that has been used as a kind of bogeyman for generations, often conflated with other bogeymen for that extra bogeyman booga-booga effect.
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Apr 23, 2015 20:34:33 GMT -5
Notice that I use totalitarian for governments that use force against their own citizens. I don't care if they are fascist, or communist or any watered down version of the same they are all totalitarian and use force against their own citizens.
Using force against those who have not used force against you is evil.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Apr 23, 2015 20:35:02 GMT -5
It is, however, a word that has been used as a kind of bogeyman for generations, often conflated with other bogeymen for that extra bogeyman booga-booga effect. And I'm asking if there is anything about it as an economic philosophy with which you take exception. That's what I'm trying to get at with this thread -- though, admittedly even I am having trouble staying focused on that. Democrats used to think it worthy of its bogeyman-ness. They no longer seem to -- even to the point of not just accepting, but actually celebrating Bernie Sanders as one of their leading spokesmen. And I'm asking "what changed?". Do you find anything still objectionable about the economic philosophy of socialism? And as a curious rabbit trail of this discussion, I find it interesting and probably significant that though those on the right are deigned to be the monolithic ones, if the Soundhole is any kind of a microcosm, it's interesting that those who voice the opinions on the right actually vote with considerably more diversity than those on the left who claim their philosophy too complex to pin down. Sure, it may be THAT complex. But it always results -- 100% of the time -- in voting Democratic. Meanwhile, Evan and I vote Democratic or third party. I suppose Bruce votes Republican. And maybe so does Peter. But Jeff? ....I'm guessing he'll consider third party. And Doug votes Klingon.
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Apr 23, 2015 20:41:24 GMT -5
Anything is better than an R or D who have proved for the last 100+ yrs that they are totalitarian and out to hurt it's own citizens. So Klingon is just fine.
|
|
|
Post by fauxmaha on Apr 23, 2015 20:43:25 GMT -5
Sometimes the subtleties are just too much to unpack.
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Apr 23, 2015 20:46:25 GMT -5
Sometimes the subtleties are just too much to unpack. I just don't see any subtleties. Either you believe it's right to use force against those who haven't used force against you or you don't.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Apr 23, 2015 20:51:01 GMT -5
Same with subtitles. Especially the ones that don't come in my language.
|
|
|
Post by dradtke on Apr 23, 2015 22:02:22 GMT -5
It is, however, a word that has been used as a kind of bogeyman for generations, often conflated with other bogeymen for that extra bogeyman booga-booga effect. And I'm asking if there is anything about it as an economic philosophy with which you take exception. That's what I'm trying to get at with this thread -- though, admittedly even I am having trouble staying focused on that. Democrats used to think it worthy of its bogeyman-ness. They no longer seem to -- even to the point of not just accepting, but actually celebrating Bernie Sanders as one of their leading spokesmen. And I'm asking "what changed?". Do you find anything still objectionable about the economic philosophy of socialism? And as a curious rabbit trail of this discussion, I find it interesting and probably significant that though those on the right are deigned to be the monolithic ones, if the Soundhole is any kind of a microcosm, it's interesting that those who voice the opinions on the right actually vote with considerably more diversity than those on the left who claim their philosophy too complex to pin down. Sure, it may be THAT complex. But it always results -- 100% of the time -- in voting Democratic. Meanwhile, Evan and I vote Democratic or third party. I suppose Bruce votes Republican. And maybe so does Peter. But Jeff? ....I'm guessing he'll consider third party. And Doug votes Klingon. Is there anything about an undefined economic policy that is used as a bogeyman for generations and conflated with other bogeymen with which I take exception? Seriously? Have you stopped beating your wife? I'm not aware of any Democrats that celebrate Bernie Sanders as a "leading spokesman." Hillary, who will be the next President, deal with it, is about as far from "socialism" as you can get. The only - and yes I mean only - people I ever hear talk about socialism are conservatives whining about it. Do I find anything objectionable about socialism? Define socialism, please. If you define "socialism" as government ownership of major industries (as Bruce seems to, with his link to a dictionary), then no. Sweden doesn't own Ikea or AstraZeneca or Spotify or Ericsson. Oooh, bogeymen. But if you define "socialism" as Social Security and public libraries, as teabaggers do (excuse me, I don't mean to be insulting. I meant ignorant mouth-breathing teabaggers), then yes, I support Social Security and Medicare and city buses and public parks and the Boston Common and even the VA, which is actually government-owned. I have voted Republican many times in the past. I voted for Ford. Republican Arne Carlson was one of the best governors Minnesota ever had, and I voted for him twice (two different elections, just to be clear. This isn't Chicago.) The Minnesota Republican party, however, has pronounced him persona non grata, primarily for his thoughtfulness and intelligence, I suspect. And I'll bet even money that Jeff votes straight Republican. Every time.
|
|
|
Post by dradtke on Apr 23, 2015 22:03:03 GMT -5
Same with subtitles. Especially the ones that don't come in my language. And I was too late with a subtitles joke. Darn it.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Apr 23, 2015 22:53:39 GMT -5
And as a curious rabbit trail of this discussion, I find it interesting and probably significant that though those on the right are deigned to be the monolithic ones, if the Soundhole is any kind of a microcosm, it's interesting that those who voice the opinions on the right actually vote with considerably more diversity than those on the left who claim their philosophy too complex to pin down. Sure, it may be THAT complex. But it always results -- 100% of the time -- in voting Democratic. Meanwhile, Evan and I vote Democratic or third party. I suppose Bruce votes Republican. And maybe so does Peter. But Jeff? ....I'm guessing he'll consider third party. And Doug votes Klingon. My experience is probably unique. I've been in the belly of the beast professionally and I understand this stuff as a process with operational mechanisms so it's not just some vaguely defined philosophical discussion of the spectrum between left and right. To the original question I see individual government actions as having degrees of concrete practical outcomes. I see a distinct role for government but I favor a very strictly limited role based on an acceptable level of real outcome that makes it clearly worth the sacrifice of liberty that necessarily comes with it. For me a convenient back-of-napkin metric for evaluating government actions is the "PSA" factor. All government action requires some sacrifice of liberty. Things that are worthy of that sacrifice have a substantial and fairly clear expression of the reasons for making that sacrifice that in general everyone can at least accept. The common defense, police, fire departments, a justice system, etc. all carry a pretty compelling argument that most can if not agree with outright, they can accept the argument as a reasonable basis to sacrifice liberty voluntarily. However it is the nature of government to always be asking for more and more sacrifices of liberty in the name of more and more dubious potential benefit. The more dubious, the more long-winded and specious the defense becomes. Hence PSAs. The general frustration that government's advocates have with thier inability to convince a normally intelligent individual that they should make that sacrifice, the louder thier education efforts become. These days I think we've gone waaaayyyyyyy beyond the useful level of government involvement. The PSA is insidious. Once you're sensitized to it, you can see them everywhere. "Click it or Ticket". "Buzzed Driving is Drunk Driving". (I have to admit a fondness for the former colleagues at DOT since they're so loquacious). Seriously. Does anyone actually believe that there still exists a sentient being that hears that on the radio and has some kind of epiphany to buckle his belt? That's a sure sign that the justification (all 30,000 pages of smoke and mirrors contained in the docket used to enact that crap) behind the campaigns is complete cluelessness. Of course those are small potatoes but when you consider the massive efforts to educate the people on things like climate change (and the really quite vicous frustration expressed toward intelligent folks who aren't buying the extraordinarily complex justifications), you realize it's not all benign concern for your welfare behind it. Make sure you've got your hand on your wallet. And because I understand government as a system, I don't get real worked up about the politics. I can usually find something acceptable in Republican ranks. Can't remember ever voting for a Democratic (that's thier prefered spelling isn't it? I get confused in the social and linguistic protocols). A viable Libertarian could get my vote also. However avoiding a liberal would trump that. My guiding political principle is that my liberty is more precious than anything and in general humans left to thier own devices will do pretty good. If you want to do something to change that, you've got a very high bar to get over to prove that it's worth the sacrifice. And no amount of calling me stupid names substitutes for your inability to make that case.
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Apr 23, 2015 23:43:44 GMT -5
If what ever it is isn't serious enough to kill someone for doing or not doing what ever it is then government doesn't belong involved.
If you don't think you should kill people for not wearing a seatbelt then it's a bad law. If you don't think you should kill people for shoveling dirt in a ditch is something you should be able to kill people for it's a bad law.
If you support government making a law to force people to wear a seatbelt then you are saying government should be able to kill you for not wearing a seatbelt, or smoking in a elevator.
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Apr 24, 2015 5:45:21 GMT -5
Bruce, you do realize that a dictionary is not necessarily the, um, last word on a topic, right? And that there might be more to an historically complex notion than what fits into the few dozen words of a dictionary entry? And that since its first appearance (in 1839, according to the OED) the term has been applied to a range of political-economic arrangements and theories? It's not a word for a tightly-definable entity (circle, square, snowflake, water) or an absolute (binary, dead, indivisible, unique). It is, however, a word that has been used as a kind of bogeyman for generations, often conflated with other bogeymen for that extra bogeyman booga-booga effect. I do realize that if there is a definition of a term that doesn't fit your needs you will redefine the term. edit, and on second thought, you just told me not to use a dictionary to find the meaning of a word. That's interesting.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Apr 24, 2015 6:08:14 GMT -5
I'm not aware of any Democrats that celebrate Bernie Sanders as a "leading spokesman." He is, hands down, the most quoted Democrat on facebook. Nobody else is even close. He's been interviewed on all the major networks as a potential presidential candidate. One of only two or three alternatives offered as challenging Clinton. And you won't get any argument from me about Clinton's chances of being the next president. I predicted 8 years ago that we'd never have another Republican president. The only way the next one won't be Clinton is if she faces a challenge from fellow Democrats. If the latest scandal disqualifies her, then maybe we'll have not just the first woman president, she'll also be our first Native American president. It will be SO cool. It will look like a papal choosing when they signal a Warren victory with smoke signals. Maybe tom-toms too. I think she should appear in full tribal regalia at the inauguration.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Apr 24, 2015 6:21:21 GMT -5
Is there anything about an undefined economic policy that is used as a bogeyman for generations and conflated with other bogeymen with which I take exception? Seriously? Have you stopped beating your wife? Do I find anything objectionable about socialism? Define socialism, please. If you define "socialism" as government ownership of major industries, then no. Perhaps you lost your place? (maybe you got turned around when mentioning dictionary definitions?)....but I think you're saying that you would take exception with a degree of socialism wherein the government DOES own the major industries? (because as you've worded it, you've implied the opposite. "...then no." would refer back to "Do I find anything objectionable about socialism?") But if you define "socialism" as Social Security and public libraries, then yes, I support Social Security and Medicare and city buses and public parks and the Boston Common and even the VA, which is actually government-owned. I'm trying to get at where is the breaking point? At what point do you finally decide that the government has control or ownership of enough? Is there anything you think the private sector does better for the general welfare of the citizenry than does the government? Is there a guiding general philosophy that directs where you think the country should be headed?
|
|
|
Post by factorychef on Apr 24, 2015 6:30:03 GMT -5
Doug, talking about seatbelts, in the last month 5 young people from the Vinton area have died from not having seatbelts on. Roll in one of our steep ditches around here and see what happens to you. I've never had a thought about seatbelt laws being bad. And speaking about Hillary, so far it's been a scandal a week about her and I think it's about time we get a women as president and get those old guys out of there.
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Apr 24, 2015 6:38:51 GMT -5
Doug, talking about seatbelts, in the last month 5 young people from the Vinton area have died from not having seatbelts on. Roll in one of our steep ditches around here and see what happens to you. I've never had a thought about seatbelt laws being bad. And speaking about Hillary, so far it's been a scandal a week about her and I think it's about time we get a women as president and get those old guys out of there. On the seatbelt thing, when I was a kid and we drove sports cars, wearing a seatbelt was cool, like a racing driver, so I got used to them and putting them on is automatic. If they want the kids to wear them, encourage racing. Make it cool again.
|
|
|
Post by jdd2 on Apr 24, 2015 6:56:33 GMT -5
... advocates have with thier inability to convince a normally ... ...humans left to thier own devices ... Once in a post I can excuse as a typo, but twice?
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Apr 24, 2015 7:06:56 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by factorychef on Apr 24, 2015 7:19:06 GMT -5
All those kids that were killed families were involved with the Vinton raceway stock car track
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Apr 24, 2015 7:32:54 GMT -5
All those kids that were killed families were involved with the Vinton raceway stock car track Not to make a joke of a tragedy this is just about stock cars not vehicular deaths, stock car folks don't know how to make a right turn. I'm not at all sure there's a relationship between the kids getting killed and their families being involved with stock cars. Even stock car racers wear seat belts though.
|
|