Random political thought thread.

[SensEye]

What exactly do you mean by "woke"?

Also, do you consider yourself a Christian?

In this instance I use woke in what I now consider the common use of the term (which is not the original definition of woke). I mean it in the sense of the politically correct dogmatic way that people parrot virtue signaling mantras without any real consideration of the pros and cons of a specific issue.

I grew up in a Christian culture but I am not a believer if that is what you are asking.

 

[SensEye]

Of course anarchy and even libertarianism is more workable. Anarchy extinguishes the State's pathological obsession with herding and controlling masses of people for its own gain, so the population is freed from false needs. But it sounds like you have a preference for being governed under a system in which case centrally-planned State demoracy is more your cup of tea. I don't....I'm anti-state but not about to sit around waiting for some political upheaval to occur....so the practical alternative in my own life is carving out my own path towards beating and opting out of the system...whatever advantage I get I take and whatever string can be cut gets cut and i do it in a way that involves the least interdependence....free and clear

Indeed, modern civilization is my cup of tea. I can't help but enjoy things like a transportation network, a communications network (the internet), well educated people from universities (who can provide healthcare and technological innovations) etc. etc. All the conveniences of modern life. A state tis needed to organized all those things, plus maintain rule of law (and regulations and taxation) so chaos does not ensue.

It sounds more like you take advantage of all state provided services and opt out were you can. That's fine, but I'd have more respect for you if you just ventured off into the wild and lived totally off your own efforts.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Some people just don't understand we aren't in the 19th century anymore and that the whole anarchy or libertarianism thing can't work in the modern world (for a number of reasons).


The first and most obvious is that today armies are moving around very quickly. In other words it is easy to glorify anti-state ideologies when the state if providing you with nuclear shield against Communist dictatorships. In other words when you would abolish the government in USA China would be landing in California in about 2 to 3 weeks. Not to mention that no significant resistance could be mounted without the government. The main reason why just about everyone is stomping on countries in Africa is because their governments are pretty weak. Also the most radical example would perhaps be Ukraine. Imagine the scenario where Ukraine abolished the state. In other words today there would be no Ukraine on the map. Since even with marshal law and large international help it is kinda miracle that the place is still standing. However just about the same would be the case for Poland, Germany, Romania, Italy ... etc if they would do the same. The same works for Taiwan as well. Abolishing the state in the end of the day is nothing more than a state of complete power vacuum, which someone will quickly fill (state or none state actors). However if you want to introduce libertarianism into Russia or China .... good luck with that.


Another problem is education, as the tech level grows the education has to be longer and longer. What is very hard to maintain if there is no government. Because even if you manage to make some kind of society without government the market will push people to work instead that they study. What means that they will not be able to compete with those that studied various tech and science topics in much more detail. What means that those people would have completely upper hand on the long run. Since experts can very quickly turn the tide in any economic issue. US is loosing in global competitiveness exactly since it has completely outdated understanding of education. In the case that the corporations aren't importing the mass of experts there would be massive problems in these areas almost instantly. However even with this factor the problems are slowly starting to snowball. Especially since US struggles in keeping the standard of living that many experts want. Being super smart and wanting to move into the country that thinks that socialized medicine is radical idea ? That is simply the decisions that is harder and harder to rationalize if you ever lived with socialized medicine (which evidently requires government in order to function). That is something as if you don't have law enforcement, who normal wants to live without that ? Without that you basically have Somalia style lifestyle. In other words socialized medicine is basically law enforcement for diseases. Your life is on the line, they have to save you anyway they can. However this can't function without some sort of the government. However in the end people who are healthy tend to be much more productive, what really matters on the long run.


Long story short: in the real world libertarian ideas are completely unrealistic. Since this is basically the utopia that only works on paper and abstract realities.

 

[ceecee]

I was in an anarchist group in college that was very cult-like. In addition, you had one or two guys always calling the shots on everything, but they used the word "we" instead of "I" so it was ok. If that's what a "leaderless" group looks like, no thanks. If you're going to call all the shots, just make it obvious and give yourself a title. The fact that you don't have an official title doesn't make it better. I never had an issue with people in leadership positions anyway. Better them, than me.

What finally made me walk away was realizing that the one or two guys running things had no plan and no desire to engage in politics. This was 2008. I said to them something like "maybe we should think about how the political climate might change in November and how we should handle that." This was shrugged off with a "we don't want anything to do with elections" (even though I wasn't asking him to vote). This made it clear to me that this was a performance for them, and that these people (or at least the ones leading the "leaderless" environment) had no real interest in changing things. (Even if they don't vote, I think they should still be able to acknowledge that an election has the power to change the "climate". I supposed if they did that, though, that would weaken their case for elections not mattering.)

If you know other anarchists, ask them what their plan is for November and see how they respond.

Maybe some anarchist groups are different, though.

Aren't anarchist groups and meetings defeating the point of anarchism?

 

[The Cat]

Aren't anarchist groups and meetings defeating the point of anarchism?

I like to think of them as human ant colonies.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I like to think of them as human ant colonies.

What about alien ant colonies?

oh nooo, it's just like maximum overdrive

 

[Red Herring]

Aren't anarchist groups and meetings defeating the point of anarchism?

I don't know about the US of A, but here in Europe anarchy is defined as a lack of social hierarchy and government, not rampant individualism. It usually implies living in communes, collectives and syndicats.

So an anarchist group, even a well-organized one, is no oxymoron. A selfproclaimed leader of such a group on the other hand...

I'm personally a fan of large scale complex civilization. There's a reason people all over the world developed states and administration as soon as they settled down and practiced more complex agriculture: cooperate to plant rice (which as far as I know, requires lots of helping hands and can not be done by an Individual or a small family), save some grain and organize things around the flooding of the Nile, control watering rights so everybody gets a fair share, etc. Add organized defense against outsiders as well as somebody taking care of keeping the streets save and you already have yourself a tax collecting, law imposing state.

Even hunter-gatherers hunt and gather in groups, take care of the sick and old, help each other out and follow tribal laws.

Thoreau style individualism in a cabin in the woods is not an option for our species, only for a handful of individuals (who, as had already been said would be freeloading on the work of others and/or dramatically diminish their life expectancy and quality of life).

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I don't know about the US of A, but here in Europe anarchy is defined as a lack of social hierarchy and government, not rampant individualism. It usually implies living in communes, collectives and syndicats.

That's usually how it's defined here. My understanding is that term libertarianism, however, has a different meaning in Europe.

So an anarchist group, even a well-organized one, is no oxymoron. A selfproclaimed leader of such a group on the other hand...

I'm personally a fan of large scale complex civilization. There's a reason people all over the world developed states and administration as soon as they settled down and practiced more complex agriculture: cooperate to plant rice (which as far as I know, requires lots of helping hands and can not be done by an Individual or a small family), save some grain and organize things around the flooding of the Nile, control watering rights so everybody gets a fair share, etc. Add organized defense against outsiders as well as somebody taking care of keeping the streets save and you already have yourself a tax collecting, law imposing state.

I too love large-scale civilizations, as well as writing, etc.

I also think laws are necessary for such endeavors as environmental protection to work. I used to argue with an anarchist about this all the time; she thought the government had no right to determine what goes on in public land. I would think anyone with a cursory understanding of the subject would realize that these laws exist so people don't log or drill these places. There are countless examples. We can look at the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary. There was a much higher level of biodiversity there when compared to most of the other beaches and harbors I've been to. (The one that came close was part of a national park, I should mention.) I don't doubt that part of this is because the waters were part of a national marine sanctuary.

 

[ceecee]

I don't know about the US of A, but here in Europe anarchy is defined as a lack of social hierarchy and government, not rampant individualism. It usually implies living in communes, collectives and syndicats.

So an anarchist group, even a well-organized one, is no oxymoron. A selfproclaimed leader of such a group on the other hand...

All libertarians I know and know of really have no issue with sucking the teat of the state - they are vastly less smart than they think, while being breathtakingly overconfident. They remind me so much of Wile E Coyote. And again, in the US, libertarians are just Republicans that want legal weed and no age of consent laws. I know one anarchist that fits the European definition but the rest

I'm personally a fan of large scale complex civilization. There's a reason people all over the world developed states and administration as soon as they settled down and practiced more complex agriculture: cooperate to plant rice (which as far as I know, requires lots of helping hands and can not be done by an Individual or a small family), save some grain and organize things around the flooding of the Nile, control watering rights so everybody gets a fair share, etc. Add organized defense against outsiders as well as somebody taking care of keeping the streets save and you already have yourself a tax collecting, law imposing state.

Meeee tooo! I say frequently - the infrastructure of government is excellent. The issue are the people in it. I know big government and social dem flavored capitalist societies tend to have happy people and happy capitalists (see Norway). But so much is about trust in government and it simply doesn't exist in the US. It's depressing.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Meeee tooo! I say frequently - the infrastructure of government is excellent. The issue are the people in it. I know big government and social dem flavored capitalist societies tend to have happy people and happy capitalists (see Norway). But so much is about trust in government and it simply doesn't exist in the US. It's depressing.

True, but the catch is that if you have plenty of people with libertarian thoughts that automatically means that it will be much harder to create government that truly works. So this is basically the closed circle of a dynamic. However if the circle isn't broken then the odds are that the system wouldn't be able to keep up with challenges of 21th century (as I explained few posts above).


Just saying the obvious.

 

[The Cat]

They cannot make their case and they cannot refute biden's case.
Doesnt sound like Biden has a memory problem, sounds like the right has a bad evidence problem.
They dont have a case for Biden Willfully retaining, documents, but they sure do for trump.
​

 

[The Cat]

​

 

[Virtual ghost]

Poll: Overwhelming majority of Americans think Biden is too old for another term


Being 82 at the start of the second term is indeed kinda too old for a job that is basically 24/7.

 

[SensEye]

Doesnt sound like Biden has a memory problem, sounds like the right has a bad evidence problem.
​

True enough, in that I don't think Biden's cognitive decline makes him guilty in this case, but it certainly makes him unfit for president. Beau at least mentions that in a throw away statement ("you probably shouldn't vote for him" @11:05). I agree, you probably shouldn't. He should make a video solely dedicated to that issue.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Although it could be that the Dems are strategic about this. First you wait that Haley drops out and that there is no alternative to Trump. And then you put forwards someone much younger.

Probably not but this could be cooking.

 

[The Cat]

 

[Virtual ghost]

Yeah, this story is all over the place. Since this is indeed something that can be considered to be genuine scandal.

However I am kinda amazed with one little detail that just about everyone missed. In other words NATO is basically a playground for quite a number of US companies. Which have Trillions in assets and revenues scattered across NATO countries. What basically implies that Trump wouldn't have the desire to protect property of US citizens if it came under direct fire or it is getting captured as a loot.

Not to mention that grinding just one NATO member would cause large domino effect of economic problems. What would evidently cause extra loses to US citizens. Hell, Ukraine isn't even the member of NATO and take a look at what that situation is causing to economy. So imagine what would it be like if Putin starts to pound something of real importance. Like Germany or UK.


It is true that certain countries in NATO should spend more on defense but this is just wrong way of talking about it. Since it just sounds as invitation to rise hell. On itself that isn't the problem but when that is happening for 473rd time that is kinda telling of certain things.

 

[SensEye]

The thing is, Russia has proven to be rather hapless. They have their hands full with Ukraine, and I suspect Ukraine would push them back if they still had support from the US. The EU is slowly stepping up, I just don't know at this point if they can supply arms/ammo to Ukraine fast enough. However, if Russia attacked the UK or Germany, and they really geared up for war, Russia would almost certainly get their ass kicked.

Of course, Russia has a large nuclear arsenal if Putin is that crazy. That would be a big issue if no sane people in Russian would stop him in if he seriously tried to go down that road. But in a 'conventional' war, Russian would have a hard time with any mid sized EU country, and if the rest of NATO stepped up to their treaty obligations (ex-US) that would be more than enough.

Also, per your graph elsewhere, all the Russian bordering states are spending their 2%+ GDP, so if that is Trump's hang up, he would still be obligated to come to their aid. Russia could never leap-frog those countries to attack Spain (for example). Trump is full of BS in general though, so who knows what he might do on any issue in reality.

 

[Virtual ghost]

The thing is, Russia has proven to be rather hapless. They have their hands full with Ukraine, and I suspect Ukraine would push them back if they still had support from the US. The EU is slowly stepping up, I just don't know at this point if they can supply arms/ammo to Ukraine fast enough. However, if Russia attacked the UK or Germany, and they really geared up for war, Russia would almost certainly get their ass kicked.

Of course, Russia has a large nuclear arsenal if Putin is that crazy. That would be a big issue if no sane people in Russian would stop him in if he seriously tried to go down that road. But in a 'conventional' war, Russian would have a hard time with any mid sized EU country, and if the rest of NATO stepped up to their treaty obligations (ex-US) that would be more than enough.

Also, per your graph elsewhere, all the Russian bordering states are spending their 2%+ GDP, so if that is Trump's hang up, he would still be obligated to come to their aid. Russia could never leap-frog those countries to attack Spain (for example). Trump is full of BS in general though, so who knows what he might do on any issue in reality.

If you take my words in a very simplistic terms then this is perhaps true. However there are more layers to this.

In other words if Trump wins 2024 who knows what will be on the agenda in 2027. By that time the mess in Ukraine could be long over one way or another and Russia could have another target. Just as it had the next target after mess with Chechens, after attack on Georgia, campaign in Syria ... etc.


Also it doesn't have to be a conventional war that there are problems. Just hitting some pipelines or critical infrastructure is enough to create a mess. However if Russians think that they can get away with it that makes the whole thing tempting.


Regarding Spain: I think you are wrong here. Since Spain is one of the NATO countries that evidently lacks in military spending. So if Russia takes it's fleet from the top of Scandinavia down there and starts to destroy vital infrastructure that could be problem and major economic disruption. As I told you, you think to much in Capitalistic terms. What is kinda wrong logic if you want to understand Russian leadership. Their logic is all about disruptions and hoping to cause disruptions that they can exploit. If you can give 15000 troops for a town like Bakhmut then what is 150 missiles for Spain's vital infrastructure.



Another layer in all of this is preventing the pro Russian politicians from getting elected across Europe.
If you think that everyone in Europe is against Putin then you evidently haven't payed attention. You have obvious people like Orban but there is plenty more. Le Pen was taking money from Putin and never she said something that is truly against him. Plus if the trends continue she could win in next elections. The winner of elections in Netherlands said that he doesn't support Ukraine. Belguim is going to split in two parts as it seem. Pro Russia party is first in Austria (while the next two ones are not too thrilled with Ukraine either). Croatian president says that Crimea will not be Ukraine ever again and that Ukrainians are attention whores with what they are doing. The current deputy prime minister of Italy was walking around with Putin on his T-shit before Feb 2022. What is probably why whole Italy sent only 0.5 billion $ in equipment to Ukraine over the last 2 years. German nationalists see Putin as an ally. The same can be said for pretty much entire Serbian mainstream politics. In Montenegro pro Russian half of the country is even requesting referendum on exist from NATO. Greeks never really severed economic ties with Russia from what I understand (and the place is half dictatorship at this point, with plenty of investemnts from China). For many years Spain wasn't spending even one percent of GDP on defense. New Slovak Prime minister ran literally on stopping aid to Ukraine (and came out first). While during Covid Slovakia was even importing Covid vaccines from Russia, since decent amount of people didn't trust those made by US companies. Turkey isn't really an ally for quite some time, Etc etc.


Therefore as you can see thinking that the Europe will come together against Russia is quite possibly wishful thinking. In other words you as Canadian never came across the narrative that Europe is under US occupation. What in the end comes down to NATO and similar mechanisms in the words of those in Europe that think this way. However this is why Trump's words are actually problematic. Since this signals that he wouldn't be interested in maintaining the status quo that existed in Europe for the last few generations. Not to mention he is personal friend with some of the people mentioned above. His words are actually much more problematic than it seems at the face value.


I know that the people on this forum wouldn't sleep better due to this post but some things have to be said.

 

[Coriolis]

In this instance I use woke in what I now consider the common use of the term (which is not the original definition of woke). I mean it in the sense of the politically correct dogmatic way that people parrot virtue signaling mantras without any real consideration of the pros and cons of a specific issue.

I grew up in a Christian culture but I am not a believer if that is what you are asking.

Yes, I was asking about your personal belief system or religious affiliation, and your usage of "woke". After all, I am interacting with you and trying to understand your specific meaning, not some trend or statistic. Your views of humanity are not consistent with Christianity, but then if you do not count yourself a believer, at least there is no hypocrisy in that. In my circles, "woke" means aware of the systemic injustices that underlie many of our current troubles, coupled with a recognition of our own responsibility to be part of the solution/improvement, as best we can in our individual circumstances. I do hope you are not confusing political correctness with common courtesy here, meaning being aware of the impact of your words and actions on others, so they accomplish your true intent. Of course, this assumes your intent is not harmful.