Reticent Liberalism vs. Unabashed Liberalism

Page 5 of 6 [ 77 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Master_Pedant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Mar 2009
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,903

28 Aug 2010, 11:16 pm

Dox47 wrote:

I put the important part in bold, where you make it clear that you're not talking about any conventional measure of political alignment but your own subjective views. Fair enough,


My "own subjective views" are probably much closer to the conventional left-right spectrum then yours are. Property rights libertarians (hencefourth known as "right-libertarians) are frequently grouped on "the Right" by conventional commentators and political scientists. I'm sure some could argue that anarcho-syndicalists or mutualists don't count as being "on the left" because they support "small government" (or, rather, no government). But few have made such a hair-splitting point because (well, for one, they've been included on the Left since the beginning, it's only in post-30's America that this dichotomy of left vs right even started to make sense) people recognize the family resemblances in spite of the differences.

The Nolan Chart is a lot less conventional than the one-dimensional left-right spectrum. If you must know my own system, it's pretty much on axis for socioeconomic equality vs. socioeconomic inequality (Left vs. Right) and another for how centralized power is (authoritarian vs. libertarian).

Quote:
I'd put you and Xenon13 at the fringe of the left here in PPR, so I'm sure from your perspective I do seem right wing in my opinions, but then again you two seem to think of most Democrats as being right wing as well.


I'm going to ask whether, for some quirky reason, your subjective system places social democrats to the left of Communists. There are atleast three Communists I know of who frequent Wrong Planet and two of them have written a fair amount about their views, so this is a very strange statement to make.

Quote:
I'll also point out, not for the first time and likely not the last either, that my social view are hardly conservative in that I support gay rights, abortion rights, unlimited free speech, legalizing of all drugs and drastic reform of the prison system including severe restrictions on privatization, just to name a few things off the top of my head.


Aside from the anti-privatization of Prision, I consider most of those issues thoroughly consistent with right-libertarianism.

Quote:
I'd like to call your attention to the accepted definition of a "right libertarian", which is someone who espouses libertarian economic ideas while still promoting social conservatism. Does that sound like me?


Where the hell are you getting that definition from? Here is mine:

Karl Widerquist wrote:
Right-libertarians
believe in strong private property rights
and/or an unregulated market economy with
little or no redistribution of property. They
are also known as “free-market advocates,”
“property rights advocates,” or “Neoliberals”
The most extreme version of rightlibertarianism,
“anarcho-capitalism,”
advocates virtually unlimited private property
rights. Right-libertarians seldom call
themselves right-libertarians, preferring to
call themselves simply “libertarians,” often
denying any other groups have claim to the
name. It is perhaps poetically appropriate that
property rights advocates have appropriated a
term that was already being used by people
who subscribe to the idea that property is
theft, and that these property rights now$
accuse anarchists of trying to steal it from
them.

http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewconten ... widerquist

Quote:
Where did I say I was in favor of just dumping money onto private companies, defense related or not?


When I brought up issues with Reagan's expansion of the military-industrial complex - noting how it was a case of corporate welfare (dumping money into private companies) - you're only response was to approve of "national defense".

Quote:
For that matter, where have I ever even mentioned the reemergence of "Soviet Russia" as a potential threat and/or as a motivating factor for supporting national defense?


If you paid attention to criticisms of the defense industry, you'd note a common undertone is to criticize how military research and weapons systems and even the structure of the military is as if America were fighting the Soviets again. The "Stealth Jet is a cold war era project" critique is quite common, actually.

Quote:
Designed around a non-existent Cold War era large scale battlefield air interdiction role, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is a Cold War anachronism without a mission. It is almost identical in size, weight and runway requirements to the Cold War era F-105D Thunderchief, also designed for much the same role.


http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-030309-1.html

Quote:
You can consider me whatever you want, hell I think you will regardless of what I actually say because it's convenient for you to stereotype me rather than actually engaging me, I'm just glad my avatar keeps your ilk from trying to trot out the "racist" accusations.


I only accuse immigration alarmists, birthers, and people who whine about minorities undermining their country of being racists. Until you start doing those things, I won't bring up the word - in spite of your paranoia that I'll bring up the word.

As for my "stereotypes" - when someone uses rightwing talking points, I will call them a "rightist". When someone creates a thread detailing a paranoid militia right idea about coming up with a system that would kill civil sevants who get on your nerves of random people and wants to discuss the merits of the idea and later whines when the moderators deleted the post - I consider them of a milita right mindset. Not all militia right ideologues are racists or social conservatives - some simply embrance a rather extreme brand of anti-government right-libertarianism.

Quote:
So, conservatives do something similar and that makes it OK?


Uh.... NO. A successful ideology does it, so that does not mean it is absolutely fatal to making your ideology successful.

Quote:
That seems to be the knee jerk response I get when I post in this thread. I thought some people would be interested in claiming the moral high ground, but apparantly I was mistaken. See my response to Orwell for an explanation of why anti-elitism sells better than snobbery over the proles.


See my entire serious of posts in which I note that conservatives have elitist tendencies, especially when it comes to unions, and see the posts where I disagree with Orwell's use of the insult "hick".

By the way, way to avoid my more important rebuttals - that there are numerous "flyover state" liberal activists and that the whole "Costal liberal snobbery" thesis is exaggerrated.



Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,671
Location: Seattle

28 Aug 2010, 11:19 pm

I found this quote attributed to Ronald Reagan of all people, and I think more people (many of them in this thread) really ought to adopt this philosophy:

"The person who agrees with you 80 percent of the time is a friend and an ally — not a 20 percent traitor."

I think both of the mainstream political parties need to think long and hard about the ideological purging that they're doing; there are plenty of people like myself out there that don't really fit in either organization and alienating us for no good reason will cost in the long run.


_________________
Murum Aries Attigit


Master_Pedant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Mar 2009
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,903

28 Aug 2010, 11:42 pm

Dox47 wrote:

And why should they? The ugly political reason is that unions spend billions to elect their opponents and opposing the unions is thus political survival. The more nuanced reason might be that unions have become every bit as corrupt and exploitative as the robber barons they were originally created to oppose. I don't like the additional layer of bureaucracy and inefficiency that they bring to the table, and I also dislike the way they've stagnated areas like school and policing where they prevent incompetent and sometimes abusive employees from being properly dealt with.


As opposed to the multimillion dollar corruption and defense of incompetence that corporations (the main opponents of organized labour) harbour? The incompetence unions harbour are far outweighted by the incompetence corporate monopolies harbour and, quite frankly, unions are the only way to fight for workers rights in an environment of monopolistic competition. Either split up corporations or learn to make peace with unions or live with the continued abuse of workers rights. Those are the three options.

Unions try and keep wages as high as possible and corporations try and keep wages as low as possible. Those are the rules of the game.

Quote:
In other words, dislike of unions is not the same thing as dislike of the working classes.


You like the working classes, but you just don't like to seem them working under decent conditions?

John Schmitt wrote:
Across all the states, however, unionization is strongly associated with increases in overall
compensation, measured here by hourly wages and health and pension benefit coverage. In the
typical state, unionization is associated with about a 15 percent increase in hourly wages (roughly
$2.50 per hour), a 19-percentage-point increase in the likelihood of having employer-provided health
insurance, and a 24-percentage-point increase in the likelihood of having employer-sponsored
retirement plans.


http://www.cepr.net/documents/publicati ... 010-02.pdf

Quote:
What does that prove?


That - in spite of all the claims of elitism and snobbery - liberal Democrats obviously are singing the same tune as the working poor on economic policy.

Quote:
The nastiest answer (again, this is not me talking here) would be that Democrats traditionally keep the government taps flowing and are more likely to espouse a redistribution of wealth, making it economically in the interest of the poor to vote for them. Conversely, this same mechanism prevents conservatives/Republicans from seeing any value in pursuing the poor vote or the black vote; they're going to vote Democrat no matter what so why waste time and resources on them? It also politically aligns the wealthy with the Republicans, since it's in their economic interest to oppose a party that wants to redistribute their income.


More like liberal Democrats ensure some of the water gets to the poor person's neighborhood so they may drink rather than giving the billionaire a chance to build another seven store high aquarium at their home. That'd be a better analogy.

Also, it could be that liberal Democrats support upward mobility and opportunity for the poor, whereas Republicans and conservatives are willing to see the poor stick to the floor in destitution.



Master_Pedant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Mar 2009
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,903

28 Aug 2010, 11:48 pm

Dox47 wrote:
I found this quote attributed to Ronald Reagan of all people, and I think more people (many of them in this thread) really ought to adopt this philosophy:

"The person who agrees with you 80 percent of the time is a friend and an ally — not a 20 percent traitor."

I think both of the mainstream political parties need to think long and hard about the ideological purging that they're doing; there are plenty of people like myself out there that don't really fit in either organization and alienating us for no good reason will cost in the long run.


The main problem with a massive amount of politically ambivalent and alienated working class people is that they haven't heard a consistent narrative that makes sense. The Republicans talk about "welfare queens" or "illegal immigrants stealing jobs" or "gay marriage undermining society" and that doesn't really answer the problems of stagnating wages and diminishing benefits. The Democrats almost avoid economic issues or obscure it in overly technocratic language and workers are still confused.

The fact of the matter is that America's dispossed workers would almost surely swing Democratic if the party adopted Ralph Nader style rhetoric and economic populism.



Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,671
Location: Seattle

29 Aug 2010, 7:53 am

Master_Pedant wrote:
My "own subjective views" are probably much closer to the conventional left-right spectrum then yours are. Property rights libertarians (hencefourth known as "right-libertarians) are frequently grouped on "the Right" by conventional commentators and political scientists.


conventional commentators and political scientists" such as? More importantly, why should I care?

Also, why are you seemingly proud of having conformist views? I tend to see it as a mark of independent thought that my views don't exactly conform to any conventional political system, I consider issues individually and draw my own conclusions.

Master_Pedant wrote:
I'm sure some could argue that anarcho-syndicalists or mutualists don't count as being "on the left" because they support "small government" (or, rather, no government). But few have made such a hair-splitting point because (well, for one, they've been included on the Left since the beginning, it's only in post-30's America that this dichotomy of left vs right even started to make sense) people recognize the family resemblances in spite of the differences.


Who's splitting hairs? I'm not the one bending over backwards to force someone into an ideological box here.

Master_Pedant wrote:
I'm going to ask whether, for some quirky reason, your subjective system places social democrats to the left of Communists. There are atleast three Communists I know of who frequent Wrong Planet and two of them have written a fair amount about their views, so this is a very strange statement to make.


I don't take the communists seriously, and none of them is terribly evangelical about their views. Maybe I could have phrased that better, but I think my implication is still valid; your political stance is relatively left and you apply the right wing label relatively liberally, your posting record will bear that out. Put it down to the difference in US vs Canadian politics, where I live, and my town is very liberal for the states, you'd be considered far left. Maybe where you live I'm considered far right, I don't know.

Master_Pedant wrote:
Aside from the anti-privatization of Prision, I consider most of those issues thoroughly consistent with right-libertarianism.


There's that pesky phrase again, "I consider". I'll touch on this one a little more below.

Master_Pedant wrote:
Where the hell are you getting that definition from? Here is mine:

Karl Widerquist wrote:
Right-libertarians
believe in strong private property rights
and/or an unregulated market economy with
little or no redistribution of property. They
are also known as “free-market advocates,”
“property rights advocates,” or “Neoliberals”
The most extreme version of rightlibertarianism,
“anarcho-capitalism,”
advocates virtually unlimited private property
rights. Right-libertarians seldom call
themselves right-libertarians, preferring to
call themselves simply “libertarians,” often
denying any other groups have claim to the
name. It is perhaps poetically appropriate that
property rights advocates have appropriated a
term that was already being used by people
who subscribe to the idea that property is
theft, and that these property rights now$
accuse anarchists of trying to steal it from
them.

http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewconten ... widerquist


I got mine from Wikipedia, which may not carry quite the weight of say a British professor who's definition can barely conceal his contempt for "right libertarians", but I digress. I read the article that you quoted there, and by the professor's description I do indeed conform to what he calls "right libertarianism. However, whether or not I choose to recognize any authority on his part or accept his judgment as the standard is a different question entirely. In the end I don't think it matters; why do I care if a UK academician's opinion is that I'm right wing?

Master_Pedant wrote:
When I brought up issues with Reagan's expansion of the military-industrial complex - noting how it was a case of corporate welfare (dumping money into private companies) - you're only response was to approve of "national defense".


I might have said something to that effect, can't say I remember it and you don't quote me, but I doubt it was quite that simplistic. Post the quote and I might recall what I was thinking at the time.

Master_Pedant wrote:
If you paid attention to criticisms of the defense industry, you'd note a common undertone is to criticize how military research and weapons systems and even the structure of the military is as if America were fighting the Soviets again. The "Stealth Jet is a cold war era project" critique is quite common, actually.


So because critics assumptions about the motivations of people in both the government and various defense contractors who bear no relation to me; and I then say I support national defense; your conclusion is that I must have the same motivations? Seriously?

Master_Pedant wrote:
I only accuse immigration alarmists, birthers, and people who whine about minorities undermining their country of being racists. Until you start doing those things, I won't bring up the word - in spite of your paranoia that I'll bring up the word.


Racist is the liberal version of terrorist, you're liberal, so... See, making assumptions about other people based on politics is annoying, isn't it? I could care less if you bring up the word, it would ring hollow and everyone knows it, not that others haven't tried before. Now you know who really hates immigrants? Unions.

Master_Pedant wrote:
As for my "stereotypes" - when someone uses rightwing talking points, I will call them a "rightist". When someone creates a thread detailing a paranoid militia right idea about coming up with a system that would kill civil sevants who get on your nerves of random people and wants to discuss the merits of the idea and later whines when the moderators deleted the post - I consider them of a milita right mindset. Not all militia right ideologues are racists or social conservatives - some simply embrance a rather extreme brand of anti-government right-libertarianism.


Such a mess here, where to start?

One, it erodes your argument when every other word is a loaded buzz word, whether it's attempting to dismiss arguments you don't like as "talking points", or "paranoid", "militia ideas", etc. It makes it look like your arguments wouldn't stand on their own without some linguistic trickery.

Two, you're mischaracterizing me several times, I started a thread to discuss a crazy scheme that I'd stumbled upon, that's not the same thing as advocating, you and the moderators both seem to miss this nuance. Is a thread discussing the rise of a certain authoritarian government in central Europe during the mid 20th century considered an endorsement of that ideology? Despite not violating any of the site rules, my thread was deleted with no notice or reason given despite statements from WP's moderators that content was never to be deleted because of the work people had put into the posts, and to function as "an archive of autistic thought". I questioned this, was basically told "tough, we make the rules", and got myself banned for insisting that the mods follow their own rules. Consider that "whining" if you want, it only reflect on your judgment.

Three, I've explained to you before (at length) how far removed I am from any whiff of militia politics, frankly I'd be a little ticked if the accusation didn't do more damage to you than to me.

Master_Pedant wrote:
Uh.... NO. A successful ideology does it, so that does not mean it is absolutely fatal to making your ideology successful.


I think what you're saying is that dirty tricks are OK if they're for a good cause, but correct me if I'm wrong.

Master_Pedant wrote:
See my entire serious of posts in which I note that conservatives have elitist tendencies, especially when it comes to unions, and see the posts where I disagree with Orwell's use of the insult "hick".

By the way, way to avoid my more important rebuttals - that there are numerous "flyover state" liberal activists and that the whole "Costal liberal snobbery" thesis is exaggerrated.


Firstly, I'm not defending conservatives, I don't really care what they do, we're talking about liberals here
Secondly, if I rebutted everything on this forum that I disagreed with I'd never stop typing. I didn't present it as cannon, I presented it as a perception that liberalism needs to overcome, in other words for the purpose at hand it doesn't really matter how true or not it is.


_________________
Murum Aries Attigit


Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,671
Location: Seattle

29 Aug 2010, 8:04 am

I don't like things that aren't true being said or implied about me and so felt the need to individually address Master_Pedant's post in some detail. However, I wonder at the point of the whole exercise. Why is it so important that MP portray me as some sort of right wing conservative? More importantly, why do I care what he thinks? I came into this thread to add my opinions to a discussion, not to turn the thread into an argument about me and what I might think.

I'm not taking my ball and going home or anything to that effect, I have a few more rebuttals to write, I'm just a bit confused at the moment. Is this an Aspie black and white thing, do some people insist on completely agreeing or disagreeing with others with no middle ground? Or is this a more pedestrian case of it being easier to try to discredit someone personally rather than disputing their ideas?


_________________
Murum Aries Attigit


Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,671
Location: Seattle

29 Aug 2010, 8:09 am

Master_Pedant wrote:
You like the working classes, but you just don't like to seem them working under decent conditions?


Nope, I just don't think unions are the answer.

Master_Pedant wrote:
That - in spite of all the claims of elitism and snobbery - liberal Democrats obviously are singing the same tune as the working poor on economic policy.


So what you're saying is that being poor makes someone an expert on economics?


_________________
Murum Aries Attigit


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 83
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

29 Aug 2010, 9:36 am

Dox47 wrote:

So what you're saying is that being poor makes someone an expert on economics?


Being poor makes one an expert on poverty. It does not make one an expert on eliminating or easing poverty.

How many jobs were ever created by the poor?

ruveyn



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

29 Aug 2010, 3:04 pm

Master_Pedant wrote:
The fact of the matter is that America's dispossed workers would almost surely swing Democratic if the party adopted Ralph Nader style rhetoric and economic populism.

Which is why the poor vote for Nader?


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

29 Aug 2010, 3:08 pm

Dox47 wrote:
Also, why are you seemingly proud of having conformist views? I tend to see it as a mark of independent thought that my views don't exactly conform to any conventional political system, I consider issues individually and draw my own conclusions.

The two of you disagreed over the appropriateness of some classification or other. Classifications are ultimately arbitrary, so the conventional use of any given label is the correct one.

As far as "independent thought" goes, on a lot of issues having different conclusions than the mainstream is less a matter of independent thought and more a matter of poor reasoning. Not saying this applies to you in particular, but it certainly does to a lot of people who brag about "drawing their own conclusions."


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


Master_Pedant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Mar 2009
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,903

29 Aug 2010, 4:45 pm

Orwell wrote:
Master_Pedant wrote:
The fact of the matter is that America's dispossed workers would almost surely swing Democratic if the party adopted Ralph Nader style rhetoric and economic populism.

Which is why the poor vote for Nader?


Ralph Nader's exposure and budget was a fraction of the Democratic Party's and he ran in a country known as a two-party state. Nevertheless, he injected some blood and fire into the rhetorical scene by inversing trite Republican talking points about "welfare" and "crime" into "corporate welfare" or "corporate crime". A similar approach would work for the Democratic Party if they tried it on a national level.



Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,671
Location: Seattle

29 Aug 2010, 7:40 pm

Orwell wrote:
The two of you disagreed over the appropriateness of some classification or other. Classifications are ultimately arbitrary, so the conventional use of any given label is the correct one.


That eventually occurred to me, but not until I was upside down in a long rebuttal post that I was reluctant to start over on. My short follow up post sort of addressed this.


Orwell wrote:
As far as "independent thought" goes, on a lot of issues having different conclusions than the mainstream is less a matter of independent thought and more a matter of poor reasoning. Not saying this applies to you in particular, but it certainly does to a lot of people who brag about "drawing their own conclusions."


I'll give you that, and I'll readily admit that there are a lot of things I simply refuse to state an opinion on because I just don't know enough. On the whole though, I think I respect people more who may be wrong here and there, but are wrong for the right reasons, not just because someone else told them what to think. Typically you can reason with those people, the other kind, not so much.


_________________
Murum Aries Attigit


Master_Pedant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Mar 2009
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,903

01 Sep 2010, 1:20 am

Dox47 wrote:

conventional commentators and political scientists" such as? More importantly, why should I care?


Your whole criticism was:

Dox47 wrote:
Quote:
Master_Pedant
I call you a "rightist", Dox47, because many of your talking points are decidedly rightwing and I view the distinction between right-libertarianism and left-libertarianism as significant. Right-libertarians may be less conventionally rightwing than movement conservatives, but they still are rightwing under my classification system.



I put the important part in bold, where you make it clear that you're not talking about any conventional measure of political alignment but your own subjective views. Fair enough, I'd put you and Xenon13 at the fringe of the left here in PPR...


You're main criticism was that I was making the waters murky by using a subjective spectral classificiation rather than the "conventional one". I corrected you by noting that the political compass system is more "conventional" than the Nolan Chart and you then ask why you should care. Because YOU BROUGHT UP THE ISSUE OF CONVENTIONALITY and so I assumed it was important to you.

Dox47 wrote:
Also, why are you seemingly proud of having conformist views?


I hardly consider using a more "conventional" rubric of left and right as "comformist views".

Dox47 wrote:
I tend to see it as a mark of independent thought that my views don't exactly conform to any conventional political system, I consider issues individually and draw my own conclusions.


Almost everyone has one or two views that don't "fit" on any spectrum - even the most extreme ultraleftists or ultrarightists. The point is that the broad majority of your opinions on fiscal policy, social equality, the military industrial complex, and even "Heartland vs. Coasts" resembles typically rightwing talking points, which is why it makes sense to label you a rightist here.

Dox47 wrote:
Who's splitting hairs? I'm not the one bending over backwards to force someone into an ideological box here.


You're bending backwards to force yourself out of the broad box of economic rightism.

Dox47 wrote:
I don't take the communists seriously, and none of them is terribly evangelical about their views. Maybe I could have phrased that better, but I think my implication is still valid; your political stance is relatively left and you apply the right wing label relatively liberally, your posting record will bear that out. Put it down to the difference in US vs Canadian politics, where I live, and my town is very liberal for the states, you'd be considered far left. Maybe where you live I'm considered far right, I don't know.


My city is fairly "moderate" when it comes to Canadian cities and I am firmly on the left, but I don't think anyone would regard me as being on "the left fringe".

Dox47 wrote:
I got mine [definition of right-libertarianism] from Wikipedia


Okay then.

Wikipedia wrote:
“Right-libertarianism” is sometimes used to distinguish all varieties of market-oriented libertarianism from libertarian socialism or from the left-libertarian tendency associated with Hillel Steiner, Peter Vallentyne,[2] and others. In this sense, the term is employed as a general label for non-collectivist and pro-private property forms of libertarianism.[3]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-libe ... f_the_Term

Seems pretty similar to the academic researcher's, wouldn't you say?

Dox47 wrote:
which may not carry quite the weight of say a British professor who's definition can barely conceal his contempt for "right libertarians", but I digress. I read the article that you quoted there, and by the professor's description I do indeed conform to what he calls "right libertarianism. However, whether or not I choose to recognize any authority on his part or accept his judgment as the standard is a different question entirely. In the end I don't think it matters; why do I care if a UK academician's opinion is that I'm right wing?


The main point with me citing the researcher and professor's definition was so that you know I'm not making up definitions on the spot.

Dox47 wrote:
I might have said something to that effect, can't say I remember it and you don't quote me, but I doubt it was quite that simplistic. Post the quote and I might recall what I was thinking at the time.


Okay

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Master_Pedant wrote:
Dox47 wrote:
While Reagan may not have been single-handedly responsible for the collapse of the Soviet Union, he did accelerate the process by increasing military spending and rhetoric, and perhaps more importantly, personally scaring the crap out of their leadership. Releasing the video from the nose camera of the missile that he sent into Ghadafi's tent, for example, gave major heartburn to quite a few members of the Politburo and made them terrified of crossing him, since there was no telling what he might do. I happen to agree with his anti tax and government service trimming positions as well, so while I may not worship the man I generally have a positive opinion of his presidency.


How the heck can you cut government services while bloating the military budget? The military is one of the biggest sectors of the government.

He was also quite a protectionist: http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=489

His policies of tax cuts for the rich, S&L bailouts, one-sided deregulations, and military bloating began the upward redistribution of wealth that created the very conditions that have ensured America's (and, to a lesser extent, North America's in general) economy is based on bubbles.

His policies were a much greater long-term threat to capitalism than anything that came out of the Politburo.


Your response:

Dox47 wrote:
As a libertarian, I view military spending as one of the few legitimate purposes of a federal government, so I have no problem supporting a strong military while trimming entitlement programs. I never said I worshiped Reagan or viewed him as faultless, I'm against all forms of protectionism and disagreed with him on various other points, but as said I'm generally favorably disposed towards him and his presidency.


http://www.wrongplanet.net/postxf129077-0-15.html

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I mentioned military budget bloating and the only criticisms of Reagan you offered were over protectionism and "various other points" that you failed to specify. You had a chance to criticize the wasteful expansion of the military-industrial complex and boondoggles like Missile Defense, and you didn't.

Dox47 wrote:
So because critics assumptions about the motivations of people in both the government and various defense contractors who bear no relation to me; and I then say I support national defense; your conclusion is that I must have the same motivations? Seriously?


I think it's more likely that when you give broad-sweeping support for a "strong military" you're pretty much engaging in some form of doublethink where you ignore the wasteful spending that entails.

Dox47 wrote:
Racist is the liberal version of terrorist, you're liberal, so... See, making assumptions about other people based on politics is annoying, isn't it? I could care less if you bring up the word, it would ring hollow and everyone knows it, not that others haven't tried before.


What a trite instance of the "mirror image" talking point. Document one pro-terrorist analogue of the "Southern Strategy".

Dox47 wrote:
Now you know who really hates immigrants? Unions.


You mean like the SEIU?

http://www.seiu.org/2010/04/why-seiu-ar ... on-law.php

Or the United Steelworkers?

http://www.usw.org/media_center/release ... es?id=0313

Dox47 wrote:
One, it erodes your argument when every other word is a loaded buzz word, whether it's attempting to dismiss arguments you don't like as "talking points", or "paranoid", "militia ideas", etc. It makes it look like your arguments wouldn't stand on their own without some linguistic trickery.


The usage of these words are supported by my overall arguments - I'm not just spouting some trite talking points as you where when you brought up the whole "heartland contempt" meme.

Dox47 wrote:
Two, you're mischaracterizing me several times, I started a thread to discuss a crazy scheme that I'd stumbled upon, that's not the same thing as advocating, you and the moderators both seem to miss this nuance. Is a thread discussing the rise of a certain authoritarian government in central Europe during the mid 20th century considered an endorsement of that ideology?


The problem is that you didn't condemn the idea right away, but called it "interesting" while specifying it may have some downsides and wanted a discussion of it. If I linked to a copy of "Quotations from Chairman Mao", called it "interesting", and failed to criticize Mao as the genocidal mad-man that he was, instead just expressing a little skepticism over its practicality, you'd be all over me (and rightly so) before calling me influenced my Maoist thought or even an outright Maoist. What makes spouting stuff peddled my the militia ultraright any less deserving of criticism then spouting stuff peddled by the Maoist ultraleft?

Dox47 wrote:
Despite not violating any of the site rules, my thread was deleted with no notice or reason given despite statements from WP's moderators that content was never to be deleted because of the work people had put into the posts, and to function as "an archive of autistic thought".


Perhaps because one other person complimented the idea as good and your thread seemed pretty sympathetic to the idea.

Dox47 wrote:
I questioned this, was basically told "tough, we make the rules", and got myself banned for insisting that the mods follow their own rules. Consider that "whining" if you want, it only reflect on your judgment.


Uh, you were posting on another person's site (unless you've done an about face and now accept the whole "property is theft" mantra) and told that posting a thread that really wasn't that critical of a depraved idea and calling it interesting didn't paint WP in a good light. You continued to complain, despite this being made clear. I think it reflects very poorly on your judgment.

Dox47 wrote:
Three, I've explained to you before (at length) how far removed I am from any whiff of militia politics, frankly I'd be a little ticked if the accusation didn't do more damage to you than to me.


Don't uncritically post murderous ideas that frequent militia movements and I won't associate you with militia movements. Fair as square.

Dox47 wrote:
I think what you're saying is that dirty tricks are OK if they're for a good cause, but correct me if I'm wrong.


I'm saying that regional elitism isn't a fatal flaw if a side that's one quite a few elections (including in a state their movement tends to detest) while possessing that flaw. And the whole "elitists don't like the heartland" is hugely exaggerated and is quickly remedied when Democrats start talking in terms of economic populism.

Dox47 wrote:
Firstly, I'm not defending conservatives, I don't really care what they do, we're talking about liberals here
Secondly, if I rebutted everything on this forum that I disagreed with I'd never stop typing. I didn't present it as cannon, I presented it as a perception that liberalism needs to overcome, in other words for the purpose at hand it doesn't really matter how true or not it is.


Then in that case, the solution that that image problem has been presented many times by many thinkers (Thomas Frank comes to mind).

Dox47 wrote:
I don't like things that aren't true being said or implied about me and so felt the need to individually address Master_Pedant's post in some detail.[/quotes]


The "things" I am saying about you are based on actually posts you've written.

Dox47 wrote:
However, I wonder at the point of the whole exercise. Why is it so important that MP portray me as some sort of right wing conservative?


Because you keep on sprouting conservative talking points when it comes to criticizing left-liberalism and the Democratic Party.

Dox47 wrote:
More importantly, why do I care what he thinks? I came into this thread to add my opinions to a discussion, not to turn the thread into an argument about me and what I might think.


A substantial part of this sub-discussion is about the validity of the righwing narrative on left-liberalism (even if I grant you "freedom" from the label of "rightist" since you're such a textbook "libertarian", the point remains that you are spreading a rather rightwing narrative when it comes to left-liberalism). I'm not sure why you're continuing in this debate as I am rather mind-blind, but I know I am putting such effort into this sub-discussion because I think the conventional wisedom of the right needs to be challenged.

Dox47 wrote:
I'm not taking my ball and going home or anything to that effect, I have a few more rebuttals to write, I'm just a bit confused at the moment. Is this an Aspie black and white thing, do some people insist on completely agreeing or disagreeing with others with no middle ground? Or is this a more pedestrian case of it being easier to try to discredit someone personally rather than disputing their ideas?


Quite a bit of this debate - when not on whether given words are right, has been on ideas and whether the narrative of left-liberalism as anti-Heartland and fiscally wasteful is correct.

Dox47 wrote:
Master_Pedant wrote:
You like the working classes, but you just don't like to seem them working under decent conditions?


Nope, I just don't think unions are the answer.


Then what is your answer?

Dox47 wrote:
Master_Pedant wrote:
That - in spite of all the claims of elitism and snobbery - liberal Democrats obviously are singing the same tune as the working poor on economic policy.


So what you're saying is that being poor makes someone an expert on economics?


Being poor makes you an expert on the experience of poverty. The poor are generally more likely to vote for people who will remedy this. They overwhelmingly vote for liberal Democrats - showing that as much as the Right likes to paint liberal Democrats as "elitist", they are much more in tune with the working poor.



Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,671
Location: Seattle

01 Sep 2010, 11:58 am

I think most of the forum is sufficiently familiar with me at this point that I don't have to defend myself from every baseless accusation that gets made, and there's nothing for me to gain from embarrassing everyone who tries. If another poster wants to try to spin my intellectual curiosity about controversial subjects into some sort of fanciful narrative painting me as a paranoid militia type, fine, my posting record tell a different story that I'll stand by.
Even my fight with the mods, which boiled down to me feeling that they ought to abide by their own rules, (Alex never weighed in either way) should be viewed through the fact that I came back from the resulting ban. There were plenty of PPR regulars with much more time here and thousands more posts that disappeared without a trace, never to be seen again, that I'm still standing ought to say something.
My views are diverse and are all arrived at via my own cogitations, I don't take my cues from any ideology or political party, let alone use "talking points". I'd could go on at length laying out my positions and explaining how they differentiate me from various ideological constructs, but I fear I'd be tiring my fingers out for nothing. One of these days I'll get around to my long contemplated post on the abuse of language in argumentation and the weakness of arguments based on buzz words and image heavy loaded terms, but that's a project for another day.
In the meantime, I certainly won't be justifying myself to people who can't respect other people's right to their own opinions, that's a losers game and a waste of my time. I'm interested in discussing issues with rational adults who can respectfully disagree with each other, not ideological slugging matches where "winning" at any cost is the order of the day. I had my fill of that in high school.


_________________
Murum Aries Attigit


iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

01 Sep 2010, 12:18 pm

Dox47 wrote:
I think most of the forum is sufficiently familiar with me at this point that I don't have to defend myself from every baseless accusation that gets made, and there's nothing for me to gain from embarrassing everyone who tries. If another poster wants to try to spin my intellectual curiosity about controversial subjects into some sort of fanciful narrative painting me as a paranoid militia type, fine, my posting record tell a different story that I'll stand by.


It does suck to have everything you've said need to be repeated, or at least demanded to be repeated, and then if you give in they spin everything you say into what they want to believe anyway. It's like, "what is the best way to waste my time? Of course! Debating with jerks who twist everything I say and assume the worst possible interpretation and never accept correction no matter how much they are proved incorrect!"