The (Post-Recession/Obama) Non-Batshit Politics Thread of 2015 & Beyond

[waif]

Free market capitalism leads inevitably towards oligopoly. Substantial regulation of business and government is necessary to preserve any semblance of democracy.

And no, Dak, I don't believe freedom and a free market are the same thing.

 

[Dak]

Unless the wealthy stand down, government is going to be run by the wealthy in some fashion. If they do stand down, those in government will become wealthy by either working with them or against them. Plato's ideal of these virtuous philosopher kings who will not pursue even "modest" material gain via their status is remarkably ignorant of human behavior.

Freedom of association is, as far as I can ascertain, the closest thing to "true" freedom that can be described. Market actions are a form of association. So a free market falls within that freedom of association. That is a negative concept though, not positive. That is, let us say that you and I want to associate. I cannot be barred from doing so, but that doesn't mean I can demand others pay for a plane ticket to Montreal either - as that infringes on their freedom to not associate with me. Being unbarred by others and having the ability are two different things.

 

[Zephyrus]

Plato's ideal of these virtuous philosopher kings who will not pursue even "modest" material gain via their status is remarkably ignorant of human behavior.

If you read the Republic, Plato acknowledges that even the best regime (i.e. philosopher-kings) will eventually become corrupted by self-assertion and private interests. Yet I think his point is that even though ideals are impossible to attain, let alone maintain, the process of striving for them is in itself worthwhile (that's pretty much the point of his ethical philosophy).

Call Plato naive (put him the context of his day, please) about human behavior or human nature, but he didn't view human nature like Hobbes and Thucydides did, and may not have thought of it as anything fixed. But that's another discussion.

 

[Zephyrus]

Also, I'm predicting this thread will degenerate into another economics duel between Dak and Ein, essentially turning it into the Batshit Dak thread. I know talking politics brings economics into play very easily, but can we at least attempt to cover other areas?

 

[Dak]

If you read the Republic, Plato acknowledges that even the best regime (i.e. philosopher-kings) will eventually become corrupted by self-assertion and private interests. Yet I think his point is that even though ideals are impossible to attain, let alone maintain, the process of striving for them is in itself worthwhile (that's pretty much the point of his ethical philosophy).

Call Plato naive (put him the context of his day, please) about human behavior or human nature, but he didn't view human nature like Hobbes and Thucydides did, and may not have thought of it as anything fixed. But that's another discussion.

Yeah, interestingly enough in the Republic, Plato (via Socrates of course) suggested that a free market would be the second best alternative to his rule by philosopher kings.

 

[Einherjar86]

Also, I'm predicting this thread will degenerate into another economics duel between Dak and Ein, essentially turning it into the Batshit Dak thread. I know talking politics brings economics into play very easily, but can we at least attempt to cover other areas?

I'm going to abstain from intense debate and try to restrict my comments purely to questioning (as per above). At the moment, I have no dog in this debate over free markets. I know where I stand.

 

[Dak]

I should be clear I don't think a free market would ever happen because (sort-of)Hobbes. I'm content to accept that. But that doesn't mean that the further you move away from it the better things will be either.

 

[Draehl]

Libertarian. We had an interesting conversation at work today on how each new president elect has had positive qualities that mirror the negative qualities of the previous:

G.B. was aloof and out of touch.
Clinton was elected being very much in tune and involved.
Clinton made some poor personal/moral choices.
G.W.B was elected a likeable Christian/moral type of guy.
G.W.B was inarticulate and none too cultured.
Obama was elected a refined guy and a strong speaker.
Obama is manipulative and deceptive.

Will the next president, be it a Republican or Democrat, be elected because of an honest, open and transparent message/game plan?

 

[Dak]

Socrates/Plato was dead on in that no good person has any business/would have any serious success in politics (particularly in a democracy).

 

[waif]

Obama is manipulative and deceptive.

Will the next president, be it a Republican or Democrat, be elected because of an honest, open and transparent message/game plan?

Not sure that's how I'd describe Obama's faults. I see inaction and compromise as his real failings.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

Also, I'm predicting this thread will degenerate into another economics duel between Dak and Ein, essentially turning it into the Batshit Dak thread.

I think they'll be considerate enough to take every 3rd post to the Batshit thread. They're Gentlemen

 

[Dak]

Inactive by what standard? Compromise takes two sides, and supposedly Republicans have been gridlock masters. Can't have compromise and gridlock. Somewhere the narrative falls apart. Obama is short on substance and long on rhetoric with a side of deception (generally inherent in skill in rhetoric). The guy is a shill for vested interests (if not exactly the same interests) as all before him.

I think they'll be considerate enough to take every 3rd post to the Batshit thread. They're Gentlemen

 

[Zephyrus]

Socrates/Plato was dead on in that no good person has any business/would have any serious success in politics (particularly in a democracy).

Image of the Ship, man.

And the Cave, too. Anyone who made it out of that shithole would be laughed at by those who are still in it if he came back and tried to change things.

 

[Dak]

Image of the Ship, man.

And the Cave, too. Anyone who made it out of that shithole would be laughed at by those who are still in it if he came back and tried to change things.

Let's have drinks and bash demotism!

 

[MasterOLightning]

Progressive/Socialist, which has no real traction whatsoever in the US, or if there is any substantial support, it's from non-voters. I vote Democrat, even though they are pretty centrist in practice. The Justice Party is almost entirely in line with what I would like to see. http://www.justicepartyusa.org/ It's noble, but no one can get rich with it. The good man will have a hard time getting ahead. Maybe it seems like a naive platform, but shouldn't we aspire for goals like theirs?

I find justice to be more of a virtue than liberty. Liberty is for the self, justice is for all.

The Democrats are eventually in trouble because the liberal social policy they trump will eventually win a big majority of the populace, leaving them no legs to stand on. A Republican party that no longer embarrasses itself talking about gays and women would eviscerate the Dems with smarter tactics and the electoral system in their favor.

 

[Draehl]

Not sure that's how I'd describe Obama's faults. I see inaction and compromise as his real failings.

He had party control for 6 years, you're right he could have pushed most whatever legislation through he wanted (for example, obamacare). Instead, I'd assume due to political/election related reasons, he obfuscated the intent as to fool the more ignorant portions of the country. He should just come out with his desires as we know the "side effects" of most legislation is the actual intent.

It reminds me of the pre-election debate where the topic of lower tax rates = higher revenue (due to higher taxable amounts at lower rates - IE the velocity of money) and Obama refuting it saying and I paraphrase "That may be the case, BUT fairness is the issue" effectively showing that he is far more interested in bringing down the wealthy rather than benefiting the poor or even growing the government (which, as much as I disagree with it is a less spiteful and far more constructive outlook than simply wanting to hurt a group of people) If he disagreed with the statement/study he should have said such, but instead he showed his true colors.

 

[Zephyrus]

Socrates/Plato was dead on in that no good person has any business/would have any serious success in politics (particularly in a democracy).

Let's have drinks and bash demotism!

Where are you, now? It could happen.

 

[Dak]

I've been in NC for the last few years and hopefully will be here for another few years. But given my M+C status it's hard to travel.

 

[MasterOLightning]

It reminds me of the pre-election debate where the topic of lower tax rates = higher revenue (due to higher taxable amounts at lower rates - IE the velocity of money) and Obama refuting it saying and I paraphrase "That may be the case, BUT fairness is the issue" effectively showing that he is far more interested in bringing down the wealthy rather than benefiting the poor or even growing the government (which, as much as I disagree with it is a less spiteful and far more constructive outlook than simply wanting to hurt a group of people) If he disagreed with the statement/study he should have said such, but instead he showed his true colors.

Do you really think the rapidly escalating inequality is a good thing for anyone other than the hyper rich? They can't make their wealth liquid in way that's valuable to society. Wealth that's redistributed to the lower and middle classes is spent on goods and services that keep people employed. The huge majority of the hyper wealthy's money is essentially in invisible assets.

I'm for a big government too. A big government employs a lot of people at good wages, and the government tends to be one of the few employers that hires minorities and generally educated people at high rates. The massive defense budget is absurd, but spent properly, it leads to amazing technological accomplishments that are as "disruptive" as Silicon Valley would like to be.

 

[Dak]

I'm for a big government too. A big government employs a lot of people at good wages, and the government tends to be one of the few employers that hires minorities and generally educated people at high rates.

YOU GET TO PUSH POINTLESS PAPER! AND YOU GET TO PUSH POINTLESS PAPER! EVERYBODY GETS TO PUSH POINTLESS PAPER!

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$




You can't manufacture growth out of redistribution, whether people have it straight handed to them or you make them join a bureaucracy to "earn it" or not. I'd rather see people get a BI than have a big government bureaucracy.