welcome to the fest
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

The Death of Conservatism (or "Bury Goldwater")
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> General Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
ShadowCell



Joined: 03 Aug 2008
Posts: 6018
Location: California

PostPosted: Tue Feb 05, 2013 9:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

besides which, i'm not sure why kenshiro is happy anyways, because nobody's actually discussing his ideas. they were shot down pretty quickly and now we're talking about something else.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Death Ray



Joined: 31 Dec 2007
Posts: 280

PostPosted: Tue Feb 05, 2013 9:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sam wrote:
Quote:
If the Republicans can no longer claim the mantle of fiscal responsibility, neither can the Democrats pretend to be the peace party, or even the anti-Bush party, insofar as Obama's policy on Gitmo, drones and imperial power is indistinguishable from Bush's.


There is nothing in terms of current polity polling which does not suggest that they can, and are, doing exactly that.

They could, in fact, be getting away with it quite handily even if Obama's policy on said subjects was base unalterable from Yoo/Delahunty policy memos (in effect, if his policy on those things actually was 'indistinguishable' from what it was during Bush's terms)


"Getting away with it" is a relative concept. In the current polarized environment, the voters are more than ever happy to discount when "their" side is doing things that would have incensed them had the "other" side done them.

So, for example, the Democratic voters, with Obama in the White House, turn a willful blind eye to the fact that Gitmo remains open, that no one was prosecuted for torture, that drone strikes continue with their death tolls left unexamined, and that the Holder Justice department is issuing memos in defense of assassinating American citizens that would have earned Ashcroft an egging from Code Pink, at least.

My point is that ideologically, the Democratic party has no higher calling that they can refer to. This is most reflected in their endless genuflecting before "the Middle Class", which is literally shrinking, while at the same time they offer no clear agenda that will allow the Middle Class to recoup even its losses of the past decade, much less put it on a path to start earning its fair share of the nation's wages that they have been denied for a generation. The poor may as well piss up a rope.



Sam wrote:
Quote:
Add to this the Democrats happy-to-blow-ya attitude towards Wall Street, and what are the Democrats except the Republicans with a smidge of social conscience?


The winners. Minus some expected (but likely to be anemic) midterm ratcheting effects, the Democratic party is not in "decline." It will effectively be guaranteed the position to determine what the next party balance is going to be, since right now it is tilling the center as american conservatism hits a demographic collapse that ó according to literally everything we know about how people vote across their lifetimes ó is assured. There's actually a fairly good chance that the next two party balance will be, effectively, comprised of two factions formerly both within the Democratic party.


I detect a bit of unwarranted gloating here. I recall the Democrats making sad puppy dog eyes after the Tea Party rout, and the Republicans are doing much the same now. The last loss always smarts, but there's always the next election. The Democrats could be the losers as of the next news cycle.

As for the Democratic party tacking towards the center, that is ground they already occupy. As of today, Obama is now the one trying to postpone the day of reckoning vis a vis the sequester, which means he still doesn't know how to cushion the blow to the left side of his base. Allowing women into combat my have been only his latest social policy sop to take the sting out of his fiscal agenda.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sam



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 9456

PostPosted: Tue Feb 05, 2013 10:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kenshiro wrote:
Only made it halfway through before I have to head off to work, but so far it's been intellectually stimulating, and thanks for that. Be careful, though:

What Sam Actually Said wrote:
Anyway, if one wants a philosophical primer on the issues of the state versus personal autonomy (in the contemporary discussion of liberal democracy vs libertarianism), you should completely ignore that video, forget you ever watched it, and watch this instead.


What I Think Sam Was Probably Trying To Convey wrote:
I consider your submission inferior to the following, and would suggest you watch this one, as I personally find it more informative.


What I First Heard When I Read Sam's Original Statement wrote:
I disagree with your ideas and therefore CENSORSHIP!


I don't have to be careful about anything. I'm nor engaging in any form of censorship. Nor would I say that I personally find my own video more informative, I would say I would find it informative, full stop. "The Philosophy of Liberty" is not endorsing a valid philosophy; precise and unambiguous criterion for the applicability of the premises that the video establishes simply don't work, it begs the question in multiple parts. It does not validly establish a case for its definition of liberty.

This is important, because it is attempting to make the case that the non-aggression principle is the border for the legitimacy of engagements of power by individuals or communities.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dogen



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 10592
Location: Bellingham, WA

PostPosted: Tue Feb 05, 2013 10:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

So now we've moved the goal posts so far I think we're playing in an entirely new field. Weren't we talking about the death of conservatism? Except it wasn't the actual death (don't get caught up in semantics!), just a rebirth? But also the death of the Tea Party, which is also ascendant? Really the death of Goldwater conservatives? Who we haven't had for a generation? Or was it the New GOP that flies on the coast and in the midwest? The one everyone else calls the moderate wing (which already exists on the coasts and in the midwest)?

I like how Jason started out having one conversation with me, got trounced, and then just walked away to get trounced by Sam. Who's next? ShadowCell? Form a line...
_________________
"Worse comes to worst, my people come first, but my tribe lives on every country on earth. Iíll do anything to protect them from hurt, the human race is what I serve." - Baba Brinkman
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sam



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 9456

PostPosted: Tue Feb 05, 2013 10:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Death Ray wrote:

"Getting away with it" is a relative concept. In the current polarized environment, the voters are more than ever happy to discount when "their" side is doing things that would have incensed them had the "other" side done them.


Yes. It is. It also helps them get away with it.

Quote:
My point is that ideologically, the Democratic party has no higher calling that they can refer to.


They do, actually. They can just keep availing themselves of the positive associative identities that their party already has, and sell themselves on it. The (1) honesty and (2) critical review of these standpoints are a separate issue to whether or not they succeed in branding themselves with these labels, much like how whether the conservatives were "fiscally responsible" is a separate question as to whether or not the conservatives are able to get themselves elected by establishing themselves as "fiscally responsible."

Moreover, a lot of the things that the Democratic Party has labeled itself as, it is unambiguously better than its sole opposition at catering to, to a significant degree. There is no objective criterion for when a party is "really" what it labels itself as; it's a matter of personal ideological lens. In effect, liberals are America's environmentalist / social parity / anti-racist / welfare / anti-war party. They can be sold on these things if by nothing else than spoiler effect avoidance.

Lastly, the genuine nature of a party's "higher calling" is mostly irrelevant, or an image-framed means. It is a political party. Its higher calling is power.

Quote:
I detect a bit of unwarranted gloating here.


I'll gloat about it, because I have called the current cycle almost perfectly over eight years ago. I'll also gloat about it because I individually am happy to watch conservatives crash and burn, and am of the opinion that democrats are extremely preferable as available stewards for the country's future direction, given the effective choice we have between the two. I completely ignore equivalence arguments or when people say "But both sides are just as bad!" ó they're not.

The rest of it isn't gloating, it's observation. Today's conservative party is terminal. The republicans are experiencing a serious demographic death spiral that they inflicted on themselves, and there's pretty much no way out of it. I'm sure they stand a good chance of some seat recovery in the midterms, and I actually expect it, because it fits with a non-overfit model. I also expect people going "see, the conservatives are coming back!" if they bounce back a bit in the midterms, and they are certainly welcome to use that success to pretend that they aren't seriously, seriously shafted.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mouse



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 17034
Location: under the bed

PostPosted: Tue Feb 05, 2013 11:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Death Ray wrote:

My point is that ideologically, the Democratic party has no higher calling that they can refer to. This is most reflected in their endless genuflecting before "the Middle Class", which is literally shrinking, while at the same time they offer no clear agenda that will allow the Middle Class to recoup even its losses of the past decade, much less put it on a path to start earning its fair share of the nation's wages that they have been denied for a generation. The poor may as well piss up a rope.


some of us consider things like ensuring health care for all, keeping the social safety net intact, protecting the rights of women and minorities and pushing things like broader access to education to be at least as high a calling as the war on terror. (and some of us remember very well that obama did try to close gitmo, and was foiled by a republican congress that refused to let him do so).
as to having no agenda for the middle class - the democrats are pushing for things like higher taxes on the wealthy (which would help drive things to a more equitable distribution of wealth, especially if, as in the past, the wealthy moved more of their money back into business when the alternative is to pay more taxes on it), job stimulus spending, the aforementioned support of keeping higher education in the reach of more people - all of which address the income issues you mention.
_________________
aka: neverscared!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Death Ray



Joined: 31 Dec 2007
Posts: 280

PostPosted: Wed Feb 06, 2013 4:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Doogie, do you realize how often you bring up my name for the purpose of reiterating some epic win you think history forgot to record? Cross me off your bucket list already.

Sam wrote:
Death Ray wrote:

"Getting away with it" is a relative concept. In the current polarized environment, the voters are more than ever happy to discount when "their" side is doing things that would have incensed them had the "other" side done them.


Yes. It is. It also helps them get away with it.

Quote:
My point is that ideologically, the Democratic party has no higher calling that they can refer to.


They do, actually...whether the conservatives were "fiscally responsible" is a separate question as to whether or not the conservatives are able to get themselves elected by establishing themselves as "fiscally responsible."..(A) lot of the things that the Democratic Party has labeled itself as, it is unambiguously better than its sole opposition at catering to, to a significant degree. There is no objective criterion for when a party is "really" what it labels itself as...Lastly, the genuine nature of a party's "higher calling" is mostly irrelevant, or an image-framed means. It is a political party. Its higher calling is power.


The Democrats don't label themselves as anything, which is my point. The wrap themselves in 60's mystique, but otherwise the Democrats and Republicans largely define themselves as not being the other.

This is not to say there aren't differences on certain issues. I'm thrilled that I can count on the Democrats to be in my corner on any subject concerning cocks and slots, but where are they when it comes time to prosecute a major bank for colluding with narcoterrorists?

Quote:
I detect a bit of unwarranted gloating here.


Sam wrote:
I'll gloat about it, because I have called the current cycle almost perfectly over eight years ago.


I don't know if you handicapped the last election and saw the rise of the Latino vote, or the surprise losses for the Republicans in both houses, but those are the tea leaves that count.

Sam wrote:
The rest of it isn't gloating, it's observation. Today's conservative party is terminal. The republicans are experiencing a serious demographic death spiral that they inflicted on themselves, and there's pretty much no way out of it. I'm sure they stand a good chance of some seat recovery in the midterms, and I actually expect it, because it fits with a non-overfit model. I also expect people going "see, the conservatives are coming back!" if they bounce back a bit in the midterms, and they are certainly welcome to use that success to pretend that they aren't seriously, seriously shafted.


Sounds like heads you win, tails they lose. I would agree that in the short term the Republicans will have to recalculate, but I think you missudge the talent of a centuries-old behemoth to roll with the changes.

In the meantime, the rolling depression continues to generate circumstances that neither party appears to be adept at handling, and that is the real game changer. We have a bruised national ego following two wars that seem to have yielded nothing but low-grade Vietnam Syndrome, our most enduring image of America at war is waterboarding, and we are in the midst of a Soviet-level financial realignment.

Meanwhile, our politicians openly admit that they are slaves to money, and the only thing they agree on is drawing safe congressional lines. But hey, at least one of them isn't obsessed with a woman's plumbing.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sam



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 9456

PostPosted: Wed Feb 06, 2013 11:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
I don't know if you handicapped the last election and saw the rise of the Latino vote, or the surprise losses for the Republicans in both houses, but those are the tea leaves that count.


I certainly have won myself quite a healthy retirement using Intrade and betting on the last three american elections, and I would not have considered the losses for the Republicans in federal legislature to have been a surprise. I don't even consider them trail effects from Romney. They were, again, based on everything we know about the reliable patterns of voters and the foundational formation of a person's political ideology, part of an inevitable trend that we can utilize to fit elections for the next 30 years. And the year in which I called it was 2005, based off of the musings and monte carlo simulations of a person I had been following but who at that time was pretty much unknown, but who is now election celebrity nate silver.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kenshiro



Joined: 04 Oct 2012
Posts: 47

PostPosted: Thu Feb 07, 2013 5:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sam wrote:
I don't have to be careful about anything. I'm nor engaging in any form of censorship. Nor would I say that I personally find my own video more informative, I would say I would find it informative, full stop. "The Philosophy of Liberty" is not endorsing a valid philosophy; ...


Please define what a constitutes a "valid" philosophy; also, please explain to me what person/agency is wise enough to make such a determination.

Sam wrote:
...; precise and unambiguous criterion for the applicability of the premises that the video establishes simply don't work, it begs the question in multiple parts. It does not validly establish a case for its definition of liberty.


I'm sorry, but I simply don't see that.
_________________
The question of our day.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dogen



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 10592
Location: Bellingham, WA

PostPosted: Thu Feb 07, 2013 8:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kenshiro wrote:
Sam wrote:
I don't have to be careful about anything. I'm nor engaging in any form of censorship. Nor would I say that I personally find my own video more informative, I would say I would find it informative, full stop. "The Philosophy of Liberty" is not endorsing a valid philosophy; ...


Please define what a constitutes a "valid" philosophy; also, please explain to me what person/agency is wise enough to make such a determination.

I probably would have worded it differently, but knowing Sam I'll go out on a limb and say that he's using valid in the philosophical sense of transitivity of truth. He explains why he holds this position in the bit after the semicolon. The part you edited out.

As to the part after your semicolon, the answer is anyone, as long as they conform to logical argumentation. Very Happy
_________________
"Worse comes to worst, my people come first, but my tribe lives on every country on earth. Iíll do anything to protect them from hurt, the human race is what I serve." - Baba Brinkman
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Darqcyde



Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 10250
Location: A false vacuum abiding in ignorance.

PostPosted: Thu Feb 07, 2013 8:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

TO be fair he didn't edit it out, he broke it up.

Kenshiro: long story short, the video you posted is kinda vague and doesn't make any concrete points. If you see them, it's up to you to point them out and explain it to us, because none of us are extrapolating anything useful from it.
_________________
...if a single leaf holds the eye, it will be as if the remaining leaves were not there.
http://12ozlb.blogspot.com Now in book form: http://amzn.to/14E6OFy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Dogen



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 10592
Location: Bellingham, WA

PostPosted: Thu Feb 07, 2013 9:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ah, right, I apologize. He didn't edit it out. I'm not all together mentally this... oh, shit, it's already the afternoon. Well, anyway.

By breaking it up he made his first section erroneous because the answer is in the second section. He could have just stuck with that part.
_________________
"Worse comes to worst, my people come first, but my tribe lives on every country on earth. Iíll do anything to protect them from hurt, the human race is what I serve." - Baba Brinkman
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sam



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 9456

PostPosted: Fri Feb 08, 2013 6:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

yeah, basically ó

validity and soundness are really important things, with real criteria. validity in particular can make or break the establishment of a philosophy.

For instance, Objectivism (a form of attempted rational egoism in vogue right now among non-aggression principle types) is an excellent example of an attempt to create a philosophy that establishes why personal liberty is sacrosanct in many, many, many forms and why only certain forms of human exchange are just. The problem is that every time it comes up for philosophical review, it gets torn to shreds because it's completely invalid, and this can be demonstrated by pulling up and detailing fatal flaws in its assertions.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kenshiro



Joined: 04 Oct 2012
Posts: 47

PostPosted: Sat Feb 09, 2013 12:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

*shrug*

Okay, fair enough.
_________________
The question of our day.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sam



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 9456

PostPosted: Sun Feb 10, 2013 9:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

One particular example as to why re: the video comes up when the video writes out the assertion "Two people who exchange property voluntarily are better off, otherwise they wouldn't do it." ó as an underpinning for the foundational justness of NAP and voluntary exchange, it is flat out broken in two ways. Man is not the perfect rational economic actor. Any socioeconomic philosophy predicated (coincidentally or purposefully) on the notion of the perfect rational economic action of people has completely doomed itself. Can the video absolutely not find, in any context, a way in which its own statement is false? Can it really survive this kind of surface assertion? Not really. Many people exchange property voluntarily in ways which are absolutely not going to leave one or both parties better off.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> General Discussion All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 3 of 4

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group