Jump to content

Why wasn't money effective?


Renegade
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, crazyhole said:

After the last 4 years can you really say that our system is perfect?   

 

"Perfect" is your word. The institutions held against what I perceived as a grave threat to our republic.

 

That shows our founding institutions are strong. That Trump very held the presidency is very worrisome.

 

But every society will face threats of despotism at some juncture. That's why having strong liberal institutions is of paramount importance. Such institutions need to be able to withstand demagogues coming into office via the political process. Ours held.

 

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

15 hours ago, crazyhole said:
15 hours ago, Toldya said:

I'm not changing the definition of it, but we obviously have different views on what the term means.   My understanding of the term populist is "the will of the majority", and the opposite of that is statism, which is "the will of the elites".    Both can be ok and both can be tyrannical when implemented.   There can be both left wing and right wing populists, so that suggests it isn't a left-right axis, its a convergent axis like authoritarian-libertarian. 

 

That's not what it means, and that's also not what statism means.

The opposite of statism (government has authority) is anarchism (no government whatsoever).

 

The opposite of populism (elites are oppressive and need to be disposed of) is elitism (elites are superior and their leadership is essential).

 

Rule by 'will of the majority' is just democracy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Toldya said:

 

 

That's not what it means, and that's also not what statism means.

The opposite of statism (government has authority) is anarchism (no government whatsoever).

 

The opposite of populism (elites are oppressive and need to be disposed of) is elitism (elites are superior and their leadership is essential).

 

Rule by 'will of the majority' is just democracy.

look at your avatar.   Start with that, and then imagine a z axis.   That's what I'm suggesting.  Since we know that populism can exist on both the left and right, it isnt part of that axis.   We also know that populism can be both libertarian and authoritarian, so it can't be part of that axis.    The same can be said of statism.   On the right it exists as fascism, on the left it is communism.  On the libertarian end it exists in the form of presidents like Coolidge, on the authoritarian end it exists in the form of a dictator.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, crazyhole said:

look at your avatar.   Start with that, and then imagine a z axis.   That's what I'm suggesting.  Since we know that populism can exist on both the left and right, it isnt part of that axis.   We also know that populism can be both libertarian and authoritarian, so it can't be part of that axis.    The same can be said of statism.   On the right it exists as fascism, on the left it is communism.  On the libertarian end it exists in the form of presidents like Coolidge, on the authoritarian end it exists in the form of a dictator.   


The reason I say populism and statism aren't opposites is because you can believe that the government needs to get rid of all of the 'elite' culture and science and education that is 'conditioning' certain people to think they're superior to others. So in this case, you're a populist, but you're also a statist.

 

You can also advocate for the abolition of all government and still believe that some people are inherently superior to others... it just means you don't think the inferior people should be told what to do or regulated by a government. So in this case, you're not a populist, but you're also not a statist.

 

And just as an aside, true communism is a classless stateless society. You can't really be a statist if you believe in that... even if you recognize that a strong state is temporarily necessary to 'prepare' for the next stage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Toldya said:


The reason I say populism and statism aren't opposites is because you can believe that the government needs to get rid of all of the 'elite' culture and science and education that is 'conditioning' certain people to think they're superior to others. So in this case, you're a populist, but you're also a statist.

 

You can also advocate for the abolition of all government and still believe that some people are inherently superior to others... it just means you don't think the inferior people should be told what to do or regulated by a government. So in this case, you're not a populist, but you're also not a statist.

 

And just as an aside, true communism is a classless stateless society. You can't really be a statist if you believe in that... even if you recognize that a strong state is temporarily necessary to 'prepare' for the next stage.

I only use the term communism because most people use it to describe the USSR or China.   I know it isn't what communism really is but if you refer to either as socialist people get upset.   

 

I get what you are saying about how populism and statism in practice can lead to the same outcome, but to me that is just an example of moving vertically up the Y axis.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Toldya said:

 

 

That's not what it means, and that's also not what statism means.

The opposite of statism (government has authority) is anarchism (no government whatsoever).

 

The opposite of populism (elites are oppressive and need to be disposed of) is elitism (elites are superior and their leadership is essential).

 

Rule by 'will of the majority' is just democracy.

 

No. The opposite of populism is a type of politics that seeks to unify a society, to seek justice, to balance the rightful claims of different groups within a society, that promests domestic tranquility, and the general welfare, protects human and civil rights, and embraces rationality and rejects demagoguery.

 

What you have outlined--in contrast--is just flipping the tables on which groups are "the people" and which are the "out groups." It is mirror-image populism. 

 

Left-wing populism and right wing populism are both populist. They are not the "opposites" of one another, but mirror images of one another whose similarities are far (far) greater than their differences.

 

Both are thoroughly toxic.

 

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, crazyhole said:

look at your avatar.   Start with that, and then imagine a z axis.   That's what I'm suggesting.  Since we know that populism can exist on both the left and right, it isnt part of that axis.   We also know that populism can be both libertarian and authoritarian, so it can't be part of that axis.    The same can be said of statism.   On the right it exists as fascism, on the left it is communism.  On the libertarian end it exists in the form of presidents like Coolidge, on the authoritarian end it exists in the form of a dictator.   

 

False premises lead to false conclusions.

 

We DON'T KNOW that populism can be both libertarian and authoritarian, except to the (true) extent that libertarianism is a fundamentally authoritarian ideology in practice.

 

All populist movements in the history of humankind have been authoritarian/totalitarian in nature. All involve putting a demagogue into power. It is an anti-liberal ideology in the extreme.

 

This "political compass" model is deeply flawed.

 

Bill

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, SpyCar said:

 

False premises lead to false conclusions.

 

We DON'T KNOW that populism can be both libertarian and authoritarian, except to the (true) extent that libertarianism is a fundamentally authoritarian ideology in practice.

 

All populist movements in the history of humankind have been authoritarian/totalitarian in nature. All involve putting a demagogue into power. It is an anti-liberal ideology in the extreme.

 

This "political compass" model is deeply flawed.

 

Bill

 

 

Trump is a populist but he isnt an authoritarian.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, crazyhole said:

Trump is a populist but he isnt an authoritarian.   

 

Of course Trump is an authoritarian. Are you kidding?

 

The only thing stopping Trump from trying to go "full dictator" is that the US has strong institutions that constrained his fascist impulses.

 

Populism and authoritarianism/totalitarianism are inextricably linked. Clearly the case with Donald J Trump. Again, it points to the importance of having (anti-populist) liberal democratic-republican institutions in place to block the ambitions of populist demagogues.

 

The opposite of populism is liberalism.

 

Bill

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, SpyCar said:

 

Of course Trump is an authoritarian. Are you kidding?

 

The only thing stopping Trump from trying to go "full dictator" is that the US has strong institutions that constrained his fascist impulses.

 

Populism and authoritarianism/totalitarianism are inextricably linked. Clearly the case with Donald J Trump. Again, it points to the importance of having (anti-populist) liberal democratic-republican institutions in place to block the ambitions of populist demagogues.

 

The opposite of populism is liberalism.

 

Bill

 

 

 

 

Ok.    Is liberalism the opposite of everything in your mind?, because it sounds like that is what you are saying.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, crazyhole said:

Ok.    Is liberalism the opposite of everything in your mind?, because it sounds like that is what you are saying.   

 

It is the opposite of tyrannical political ideologies--which include populist variations.

 

Most assuredly.

 

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, crazyhole said:

Let's just take this on an individual issue basis.  

 

Is mandatory vaccines liberalism, or is voluntary vaccines liberalism?  Is a national currency liberalism or is a global currency liberalism?

 

None of these specific policy points are a fundamental part of liberalism as a political philosophy. 

 

Bill

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, SpyCar said:

 

None of these specific policy points are a fundamental part of liberalism as a political philosophy. 

 

Bill

 

 

 

 

You're just dodging the questions here.    If you are saying that literally everything is the opposite of liberalism then you have to be able to define it down to individual policy positions.     Otherwise, the political graph theory stands as being much more rational.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, crazyhole said:

You're just dodging the questions here.    If you are saying that literally everything is the opposite of liberalism then you have to be able to define it down to individual policy positions.     Otherwise, the political graph theory stands as being much more rational.    

 

Not dodging in the least. Stances on specific policies are not determinative of an affirmation to liberalism as a political construct.

 

And I did not say that "liberalism" was the opposite of "everything," you said that, and I'd like you to stop trying to put words in my mouth--it is disrespectful.

 

What I said was that liberalism is the opposite of tyrannical political ideologies.

 

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, SpyCar said:

 

Not dodging in the least. Stances on specific policies are not determinative of an affirmation to liberalism as a political construct.

 

And I did not say that "liberalism" was the opposite of "everything," you said that, and I'd like you to stop trying to put words in my mouth--it is disrespectful.

 

What I said was that liberalism is the opposite of tyrannical political ideologies.

 

Bill

That sounds to me like you are confusing liberalism with libertarianism.   By definition, libertarianism is non-tyrannical, yet you aligned it with authoritarianism, which is its polar opposite.  Possibly you are referring to classical liberalism.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, crazyhole said:

That sounds to me like you are confusing liberalism with libertarianism.   By definition, libertarianism is non-tyrannical, yet you aligned it with authoritarianism, which is its polar opposite.  Possibly you are referring to classical liberalism.   


No. Libertarianism—in actuality—promotes tyranny by trying to undermine the legitimate purposes of a liberal republic (by falsely branding vital institutions that protect freedoms as “statism”) which allows private oligarchs to crush the liberties and economic opportunities of the citizenry without opposition. And the same oligarchs form a parallel state (a gangster state) and inevitably try to grab political power.
 

Libertarianism is a failed political ideology. It exists only in airy-faerie land, or as an adjunct to extreme far right political movements.

 

There has never been a successful libertarian state. But there have been plenty of dictators who have taken inspiration in libertarianism and from people like Nietzsche. Such fanaticism never turns out well. 

 

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, SpyCar said:


No. Libertarianism—in actuality—promotes tyranny by trying to undermine the legitimate purposes of a liberal republic (by falsely branding vital institutions that protect freedoms as “statism”) which allows private oligarchs to crush the liberties and economic opportunities of the citizenry without opposition. And the same oligarchs form a parallel state (a gangster state) and inevitably try to grab political power.
 

Libertarianism is a failed political ideology. It exists only in airy-faerie land, or as an adjunct to extreme far right political movements.

 

There has never been a successful libertarian state. But there have been plenty of dictators who have taken inspiration in libertarianism and from people like Nietzsche. Such fanaticism never turns out well. 

 

Bill

I honestly don't know what to say.    You're basically saying that liberty is tyranny.    Either that or you have different definitions of political terms than the rest of the world.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, crazyhole said:

I honestly don't know what to say.    You're basically saying that liberty is tyranny.    Either that or you have different definitions of political terms than the rest of the world.    


I must insist that you stop telling me what I am saying. I’m able to express my own thoughts very clearly—and you do not speak for me.

 

Liberty is clearly not tyranny.
 

The problem is that Libertarianism does not protect liberty. It is an extremist ideology that has never worked in practice, that would undercut the necessary and legitimate purposes of a liberal republican government that are necessary to the maintenance of a free state.

 

Libertarianism is a pathway to anarchy and a “jungle state,” which is just another form of tyranny.

 

Stop telling me what I believe and/or trying to put falsehoods into my mouth. I speak for me, not you. Clear?
 

Bill

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, SpyCar said:


I must insist that you stop telling me what I am saying. I’m able to express my own thoughts very clearly—and you do not speak for me.

 

Liberty is tyranny. Libertarianism does not protect liberty. It is an extremist ideology that has never worked in practice, that would undercut the necessary and legitimate purposes of a liberal republican government that are necessary to the maintenance of a free state.

 

Libertarianism is a pathway to anarchy and a “jungle state,” which is just another form of tyranny.

 

Stop telling me what I believe and/or trying to put falsehoods into my mouth. I speak for me, not you. Clear?
 

Bill

 

 

Wait what?     I said you were suggesting that liberty is tyranny and then you literally said that liberty is tyranny, so I don't think I was putting words in your mouth.    

 

I'm just curious about how you define liberalism, because it seems like your definition of it is completely unique.   It seems like you are suggesting it is a system defined by freedom and any other variant is anti-freedom.    That should be somewhat measurable in specific topics, which is why I brought them up.   

 

In your definition of liberalism, can a person be 100% pro choice and also 100% pro guns?   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, crazyhole said:

Wait what?     I said you were suggesting that liberty is tyranny and then you literally said that liberty is tyranny, so I don't think I was putting words in your mouth.    

 

I'm just curious about how you define liberalism, because it seems like your definition of it is completely unique.   It seems like you are suggesting it is a system defined by freedom and any other variant is anti-freedom.    That should be somewhat measurable in specific topics, which is why I brought them up.   

 

In your definition of liberalism, can a person be 100% pro choice and also 100% pro guns?   


Read my post. Liberty is clearly NOT tyranny. 
 

To be clear, what I was speaking about is the necessity of dispersing power in a liberal democratic-republic to prevent a despot from imposing authoritarianism.

 

Libertarianism is so extreme that it undermines strong institutions. This invites an inevitable power vacuum that bad actors are only too happy to fill. So we’d have rule by war-lords, gang bosses, and other thugs instead of a civil society.

 

I don’t wish to live in Somalia. The examples of political order offered by first world democracies is far more to my taste.
 

And—yet again—you make the mistake of thinking that everyone in a liberal democratic republic must necessarily policy preferences or share factional preferences, when the assumption is precisely the opposite. Believing those who share a governing political philosophy must agree on all points of policy is cult-like thinking of the sort that predominates in libertarian circles.

 

Liberal democrats assume people will have different interests, policy preferences, and that societies need to have ways to work out the disputes without breaking the political and societal order. 
 

Bill

 

 

 

  • Confused 1
  • Thumb up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, SpyCar said:


Read my post. Liberty is clearly NOT tyranny. 
 

To be clear, what I was speaking about is the necessity of dispersing power in a liberal democratic-republic to prevent a despot from imposing authoritarianism.

 

Libertarianism is so extreme that it undermines strong institutions. This invites an inevitable power vacuum that bad actors are only too happy to fill. So we’d have rule by war-lords, gang bosses, and other thugs instead of a civil society.

 

I don’t wish to live in Somalia. The examples of political order offered by first world democracies is far more to my taste.
 

And—yet again—you make the mistake of thinking that everyone in a liberal democratic republic must necessarily policy preferences or share factional preferences, when the assumption is precisely the opposite. Believing those who share a governing political philosophy must agree on all points of policy is cult-like thinking of the sort that predominates in libertarian circles.

 

Liberal democrats assume people will have different interests, policy preferences, and that societies need to have ways to work out the disputes without breaking the political and societal order. 
 

Bill

 

 

 

Clearly you just had a typo then because your post did say that liberty is tyranny.   Fair enough.    

 

It seems like what you are suggesting is a live and let live society, which is what most people define as libertianism.    Not the party, the ideology.    You also seem to be suggesting that rules need to exist, which everyone would agree on.   My question is still the same as what it is was though, at what point to rules become tyrannical?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, crazyhole said:

Clearly you just had a typo then because your post did say that liberty is tyranny.   Fair enough.    

 

It seems like what you are suggesting is a live and let live society, which is what most people define as libertianism.    Not the party, the ideology.    You also seem to be suggesting that rules need to exist, which everyone would agree on.   My question is still the same as what it is was though, at what point to rules become tyrannical?

 

No. Libertarianism isn't "live and let live" in practice, due to the extremism of this ideology.

 

By trying to paint the legitimate institutions of government as practitioners of statist authoritarianism instead of guarantors of domestic tranquility, promoters of the general welfare, and protectors of civil rights, libertarians would destroy the institutions that are necessary to have a free and civil society.

 

The result would be a society where might makes right. Narco-states, war-lords, mafias and the like would rule.

 

That's not freedom.

 

Likewise libertarians fail to protect common resources like clean water, clean air, and public lands.

 

Again, I never said everyone would need to agree on the rules--and again must ask you not to speak for me. Do not attempt to put words in my mouth. I was very clear that in a liberal democratic republic one can expect a diversity of positions on just about everything. Finding means to work out political differences peacefully is the hallmark of liberal states.

 

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, SpyCar said:

 

No. Libertarianism isn't "live and let live" in practice, due to the extremism of this ideology.

 

By trying to paint the legitimate institutions of government as practitioners of statist authoritarianism instead of guarantors of domestic tranquility, promoters of the general welfare, and protectors of civil rights, libertarians would destroy the institutions that are necessary to have a free and civil society.

 

The result would be a society where might makes right. Narco-states, war-lords, mafias and the like would rule.

 

That's not freedom.

 

Likewise libertarians fail to protect common resources like clean water, clean air, and public lands.

 

Again, I never said everyone would need to agree on the rules--and again must ask you not to speak for me. Do not attempt to put words in my mouth. I was very clear that in a liberal democratic republic one can expect a diversity of positions on just about everything. Finding means to work out political differences peacefully is the hallmark of liberal states.

 

Bill

I apologize if I put words in your mouth.   I said  "it seems like you are saying" a couple of times if that is what you are talking about but I didn't mean it to be an accusation.   

 

From my perspective, what I hear you saying is that there is a system that is superior to all others,  called liberalism, but in practice it seems somewhat undefinable whereas all other systems are easily definable and are all tyrannical and authoritarian.   Is that somewhat correct?   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...