Is America great now?

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

We should have dozens of Elon Musks by now, not just the one. The greatest purpose in life is the creation of meaning, and though possible under any circumstances, it's much easier and easier to share under constructive- not deconstructive- times and philosophies.

If we have dozens of Elon Musks, does this mean dozens of Bolivian coups, as well? Strange how often we overthrow democratic governments while talking about how we bring freedom to the world. It's a bit funny in this respect to focus on Trump cozying up to dictators as an aberration.

If capitalism is such a natural system, we wouldn't have to do all these coups in Latin America to support it.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Capitalism doesn't seem to be possible without coercion.

 

[Lark]

I think critical theory is the fountainhead of just about everything wrong with the modern left's focus and goals, and just because I've insulated myself and my life from having to deal with or depend on the idiots that buy into it, it does not mean it doesn't affect me on a broader scale. All the mainstream arts that I used to enjoy- hollywood, music, plays, various other productions/shows- rather than be interesting, envelope pushing, brilliant or inspiring in any way, now mostly just re-invent problems that were all but solved long before I came along, and pretend to "educate" people of things they already know in bloated form, all for the collective fapping of sneering, pseudo-intellectual narcissists. 50 years after 2001 A Space Odyssey, here's "This Is America" by Childish Gambino <insert finger pistol to the head here> It's transformed the country- and the world that follows its lead- into something bland, backwards, and miserable. We should have dozens of Elon Musks by now, not just the one. The greatest purpose in life is the creation of meaning, and though possible under any circumstances, it's much easier and easier to share under constructive- not deconstructive- times and philosophies.

I dont pay so much attention to things that I dislike.

I would wager that what you describe as critical theory matters more to you than this "modern left" that you describe, I'm not sure I know anyone who describes themselves that way.

I certainly dont know anyone who thinks they have been as successful at pulling off a complete transformation as you describe here. Maybe all the things you dislike are not connected? What if they arent all attributable to a single cause? Let alone academia.

 

[Lark]

Capitalism doesn't seem to be possible without coercion.

I have no problem with capitalism between consenting adults but its hard to find for sure.

 

[anticlimatic]

I dont pay so much attention to things that I dislike. I would wager that what you describe as critical theory matters more to you than this "modern left" that you describe, I'm not sure I know anyone who describes themselves that way. I certainly dont know anyone who thinks they have been as successful at pulling off a complete transformation as you describe here. Maybe all the things you dislike are not connected? What if they arent all attributable to a single cause? Let alone academia.

I'll take your angle of response downplaying the frequency or intensity of the phenomenon I described, rather than defending it, as an implied affirmation of its absurdity. I do think the majority of people, left or right, are against it- even if very few on the left stand up and say so.

 

[anticlimatic]

Capitalism doesn't seem to be possible without coercion.

We got it with a war against a tyrannical monarchy. Coercion would be a step in the right direction, if possible.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

We got it with a war against a tyrannical monarchy. Coercion would be a step in the right direction, if possible.

Not very libertarian to support coercion.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I think it's reasonable for people in Bolivia for them to want to be able to manage their own resources instead of a bunch of wealthy Americans.

 

[ceecee]

Not very libertarian to support coercion.

Right-wing authoritarians want society and social interactions structured in ways that increase uniformity and minimize diversity. In order to achieve that, they tend to be in favour of social control, coercion and the use of group authority to place constraints on the behaviours of people such as political dissidents and immigrants. These constraints might include restrictions on immigration, limits on free speech and association and laws regulating moral behaviour. It is the willingness to support or take action that leads to increased social uniformity that makes right-wing authoritarianism more than just a personal distaste for difference. Right-wing authoritarianism is characterized by obedience to authority, moral absolutism and punitiveness towards dissidents and deviants. In parenting, right-wing authoritarians value children's obedience, neatness and good manners.[1]

Right-wing authoritarianism - Wikipedia

It's amazing how they are all so alike and so predictable.

 

[anticlimatic]

Right-wing authoritarianism - Wikipedia It's amazing how they are all so alike and so predictable.

Honey we need to get you a new obsession.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Honey we need to get you a new obsession.

Well, judging by the fact that you're ok with coercion, it seems appropriate.

 

[ceecee]

Well, judging by the fact that you're ok with coercion, it seems appropriate.

I absolutely love how shook he gets when anyone points out what a pile of sad, old dried shit his opinion are.

 

[draon9]

america was never great from the beginning,it just took us too long to realize that. a lot of us was in our own world till someting crazy happen.

 

[Lateralus]

Capitalism doesn't seem to be possible without coercion.

No economic system can exist on a large scale with zero coercion, but it would be nice if there was a lot less coercion with capitalism. It's certainly possible, but without coercion money doesn't flow into the "right hands".

 

[Virtual ghost]

Capitalism doesn't seem to be possible without coercion.

I actually disagree. Although if you manage to build that certain groups will scream that this is no longer Capitalism.
In other words you Americans seem to be using way too narrow definition of Capitalism. What is simply incorrect or at least simplistic. Even your political tests that are floating around are kinda pushing the idea that only unregulated markets are Capitalism. While regulated Capitalism is generally called out with the other "C" word. What is false since the assets mostly still have a private owners, it is just that you can't do just about everything what you want since others have their rights as well. Plus if you have the option to call snap elections at any time and everyone can run for a seat and win that kinda means the people own the government. Which is kinda just the joint endeavor of it's citizens, which tends to focus the joint efforts of survival and progress. Which is why I generally manage to advocate for bigger government support without much of fear from openly totalitarian stuff. Since for me the government is a part of market and society just like any other. I even got some pretty good deals from the government in the terms of education and healthcare. Therefore just if I am doing "business" with the government in certain issues that doesn't mean that this is not Capitalism. Especially since there are Capitalisms instead of just Capitalism.



Just today I was watching my own parliament while having breakfast and the speech of a guy that is basically far right, a Christian and ex military officer that was fighting the red army back in the last war. However what did he advocated ? He advocated that access to clean water supply should be a human right (again). What simply means that he remained the defender of the people. While in US he would be called all kinds of names because of that. What is because you guys have completely mixed up all the bags in this game for the name of fast profit. In other words just because you are not for maximizing profit at just about every turn that doesn't mean you are not a Capitalist. Since Capitalism just like any other system is still build around people and people by definition need some kinda of a shelter and safe zones. Therefore once you mess up that you are destroying the whatever the system you are having (capitalism included) for the sake of having a mass. What means that coercion if applied constantly is anti-capitalist measure since it is eroding the system. As I said before the problem with US is anarcho part in anarcho-capitalism, not Capitalism per se. However you as a nation both on the right and on the left are constantly dreaming about some kind of a limited government and being free. While in fact you are all stuck in your own mud and mess since you are all anti-system on certain ways and that is inevitably auto-destructive. Therefore since there is no working system you are turning one on another by ripping people off, constant looting, scamming people or by using what little order there is to get the upper hand on people in order to get a sense of safety and belonging you probably never had.

 

[Lark]

No economic system can exist on a large scale with zero coercion, but it would be nice if there was a lot less coercion with capitalism. It's certainly possible, but without coercion money doesn't flow into the "right hands".

The perfect is the enemy of the good as they say, although that saying shouldnt be a pretext for tolerating avoidable suffering and failing to make improvements where its possible.

 

[Lark]

I'll take your angle of response downplaying the frequency or intensity of the phenomenon I described, rather than defending it, as an implied affirmation of its absurdity. I do think the majority of people, left or right, are against it- even if very few on the left stand up and say so.

That's terribly wordy, sometimes when I encounter wordy posts like that I suspect the point being made is not strong and therefore it has to avoid being clear.

 

[Lark]

We got it with a war against a tyrannical monarchy. Coercion would be a step in the right direction, if possible.

You got capitalism in a war against a tyrannical monarchy? What do you mean America? What was the tyrannical monarchy practicing? It wasnt socialism and that's for sure.

What do you mean coercion would be a step in the right direction? What do you mean "if possible"?

 

[Lark]

Not very libertarian to support coercion.

Oh but it is.

Provided its private and exercised through the medium of old money.

 

[Lark]

Right-wing authoritarianism - Wikipedia

It's amazing how they are all so alike and so predictable.

You do get that type of thing, sure, although I think its pretty old fashioned, it'd only ever make a come back as a trojan horse, if it became popular enough with enough people the politicians or their sponsors might begin selling it again but largely, modern day privilege and old money will be content with people suffering destitution, slow death, misery all through being part of the cash strapped and socially excluded. No one talking out of turn or they can join them.

Its a different sort of coercion, undetectable to most libertarians.