What is liberal statism? (Split from GD is MMM informed by...

[CDP45]

I think liberal statism gives it's adherents false confidence when it equates government with charity. This is quite a fragile foundation morally and fiscally.

I don't understand this statement.  Can you elaborate or explain it in more detail?

Liberal is the adjective to noun statism, and statism is the belief to further a political system in which the state has substantial centralized control over social and economic affairs. 

I think liberal statism is similar to socialism, and conservative statism closer to facism, and communism a combination of both.

[Russ]

care to explain the rest?

[msilenus]

Liberal statism is best understood as the conservative counterweight to the recent surge of reactionary fervor in American politics.

[prof61820]

I think liberal statism gives it's adherents false confidence when it equates government with charity. This is quite a fragile foundation morally and fiscally.

I don't understand this statement.  Can you elaborate or explain it in more detail?

Liberal is the adjective to noun statism, and statism is the belief to further a political system in which the state has substantial centralized control over social and economic affairs. 

I think liberal statism is similar to socialism, and conservative statism closer to facism, and communism a combination of both.

Okay, I'll bite but since this is way deep into political philosophy I'd like to try to understand your pre-existing political views.  What do you think socialism, fascism and communism are?  What governmental/political system do you think the US has now?  What system do you think Democrats and republicans promote.

[CDP45]

I wonder if people outside the USA give far less to charity because they think their taxes compensate for tithing?

Huh?  I'm not sure if you can call tithing charity because its something that a person feels that's necessary to participate in their religion.  Charity is something that you give voluntarily.  I think people feel that taxes are the most efficient way to address society's problems such as national defense, education, roads, healthcare, and care for the poor, sick and elderly, etc.

 I think you misunderstand tithing, which I would think most Christians understand to be voluntary also. My morality is not dependent on efficiency, nor are most systems of government.

[CDP45]

I think we have had historically a constitutional republic that has become more democratic via the referendum process, but I'd describe it as half-assed socialism currently. If soviet russia or north korea is a 10 on the statist scale, i'd say we're about a 5.

[Russ]

Mod Russ says:

Answering questions and explaining your views is great, but if you're just going to take bickering from another thread and repost it here I will be shutting this down. Just a heads up, as I can see this potentially going that way.

[CDP45]

I just thought the conversation on the original thread was getting off topic, should we continue there? I thought this was the "off topic" spot for politics? I just thought his assertion of "facts" wasn't accurate on the original thread but rather than debate there. I didn't think sentences like "Obama's message of education, hard work and personal responsibility connected him with white suburban voters all over the country" had much to do with the original topic...

[Russ]

that's fine thanks for the consideration. I would still suggest changing the thread title to reflect that, otherwise it comes off as "this one thing, and oh yeah all this other stuff CDP wants to go on about"

I might suggest something like "Off Topic Split from X Thread", then go post in there what discussion will be moved over here.

[CDP45]

1. How does an involuntary cut of your paycheck

2.  spent on programs you have no control over choosing equate to charity?

3. Let alone when the very same government is causing untold hardships and deaths, and all of the funding coming from the same commingled funds?

4  How do you think Jesus Christ feels about Obama not pulling troops/contractors/mercenaries/advisors out of Iraq and Afghanistan when he has the power to do so? What about his power to immediately close Guantanamo? Or release all non-violent drug offenders? Or effectively legalize marajuana ?

I feel like this post deserves a response because it  is so foreign from my way of thinking but there is a strong current of this type of thought on here:

1.  Are you living in a nation run by a dictator?  If not, why are you whining like this?  Since you are banging on Obama, ironically for not acting like a dictator, I'll assume you live in the US.  Taxes are not involuntary, they are the result of a democratically elected government.  Why would you feel otherwise?  Also, why do you chose to continue to live in the US if your paycheck is being involuntarily raided?  Go find a Libertarian utopia somewhere in the world where you can prevent these type of raids.

Taxes are quite involuntary, even if you "agree" with them, hence the word tax. If I was walking around drunk in south side chicago at 12am and got robbed, would you think it was my fault for being there? Or is it only after being robbed on a monthly basis is it my fault?

Actually I think he is the dictator..of the armed forces. Funny that you support him NOT ending the wars. Oh and I'm sure if you had anything critical to say about the prior administration you would just take your own advice and leave for progressivtopia?

2.  Puhlease, you have the power to vote, blog, donate and volunteer on political campaigns or run for office yourself with no fear of any repercussions.  You do have the power to impact how your tax dollars are spent.  The point you make is a classic first world problem that many people in the world literally kill for the right to participate in their government in this manner.   If you can't live with this system suggest a better one or do what MMM does and not worry (or complain) about it because it's beyond his control and focus on the things you can control.

Please describe how you chose the amount of dollars the government gave the charity of your choice.

3.  Please name a few.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistics_of_incarcerated_African-American_males

4.  I don't agree with Obama on everything but Obama has made progress for a withdrawal in the middle east (a war in a vital region to the US that he didn't start), I agree that he should close Guantanamo but the Repubs just went bat shit when he freed an American prisoner of war recently (and Speaker Boehner has recently sued him for acting unilaterally to solve problems) so I can't even imagine the howling the Repubs would do if he closed Guantanamo, I think Congress is better equipped to address sentencing for non-violent drug offenders and the states are doing a pretty good job of legalizing marijuana on their own.

Oh good, I'm glad he's making progress after 5+ years in your mind. I'm sure the tens of thousands of people murdered in Afghanistan really think so too.

[grantmeaname]

I love the wikipedia definition of statism.

"In political science, statism is the belief that the state should control either economic or social policy, or both, to some degree."

You got me, I'm a statist. As are most (all?) libertarians.

[GuitarStv]

I love the wikipedia definition of statism.

"In political science, statism is the belief that the state should control either economic or social policy, or both, to some degree."

You got me, I'm a statist. As are most (all?) libertarians.

Probably not necessary to limit it to a particular political leaning . . . I suspect that this term would cover most people in the world.  That would be why some sort of state to control economic and social policy arises out of virtually every group of people left along for long enough.

[prof61820]

I wonder if people outside the USA give far less to charity because they think their taxes compensate for tithing?

Huh?  I'm not sure if you can call tithing charity because its something that a person feels that's necessary to participate in their religion.  Charity is something that you give voluntarily.  I think people feel that taxes are the most efficient way to address society's problems such as national defense, education, roads, healthcare, and care for the poor, sick and elderly, etc.

 I think you misunderstand tithing, which I would think most Christians understand to be voluntary also. My morality is not dependent on efficiency, nor are most systems of government.

You already get a tax deduction for your tithe, what more do you want?

[prof61820]

I think we have had historically a constitutional republic that has become more democratic via the referendum process, but I'd describe it as half-assed socialism currently. If soviet russia or north korea is a 10 on the statist scale, i'd say we're about a 5.

I think our world view is a little too far apart to have a productive political dialogue.

[CDP45]

I love the wikipedia definition of statism.

"In political science, statism is the belief that the state should control either economic or social policy, or both, to some degree."

You got me, I'm a statist. As are most (all?) libertarians.

This one is more definite: "A person who believes that the power of the unified state is needed to correct the failings of human greed, ignorance, tribalism, for the furtherance of the nation as a whole, regardless of constraint. The good of all is more valuable than the desires of any one individual." - http://www.nolanchart.com/article1418-what-is-a-statist-html

[grantmeaname]

Holy straw man! If you're a statist you've gotta think people are greedy and ignorant, and that the state should have no limits on its power?

[GuitarStv]

Would implementing a statist mindset make one a statistician?

[msilenus]

This one is more definite: "A person who believes that the power of the unified state is needed to correct the failings of human greed, ignorance, tribalism, for the furtherance of the nation as a whole, regardless of constraint. The good of all is more valuable than the desires of any one individual." - http://www.nolanchart.com/article1418-what-is-a-statist-html

You've just responded to someone who defined away all controversy by defining away all controversy.  You're not going to find anyone who would argue for abolishing the Bill of Rights, so you're not going to find anyone who would argue for a powerful state seeking to do good "regardless of constraint."

[CDP45]

This one is more definite: "A person who believes that the power of the unified state is needed to correct the failings of human greed, ignorance, tribalism, for the furtherance of the nation as a whole, regardless of constraint. The good of all is more valuable than the desires of any one individual." - http://www.nolanchart.com/article1418-what-is-a-statist-html

You've just responded to someone who defined away all controversy by defining away all controversy.  You're not going to find anyone who would argue for abolishing the Bill of Rights, so you're not going to find anyone who would argue for a powerful state seeking to do good "regardless of constraint."

Well the Obama admin is actively subverting the 4th amending in practice, and doing all it can judicially to continue it, so I do think you would find a lot of people who are happy to ignore parts of the bill of rights.

Here's maybe a better one: "Statism is, then, the doctrine that a powerful central government should make policy based on targeted outcomes and not be limited by hard-and-fast rules about individual rights to property, or even security in their personal affairs."

Basically someone who thinks violent coercion is acceptable against individuals if there isn't enough resistance to stop it, and they have somehow consented to these acts of government. I would also say statists do not universally support individual rights, hence the split of liberal and conservative statism.

There was definitely a resurgence of conservative statism under Bush, where tea partiers today and others on the right quickly forgot their defense of individual liberties for the justification of keeping everyone safe. And now the liberal statists have quickly forgotten their anti-war marches and defense of privacy, as some contemporary examples of statist thoughts and positions. 


Wow this is an excellent description! : http://wirkman.wordpress.com/2012/11/01/what-is-statism/

[msilenus]

So... I'm a huge fan of Obamacare, Social Security, Medicare, a strong military with a global force projection capability, SNAP, Section 8, and taxes high enough to pay for it all (which is pretty high) --but I'm no statist because I think the government should be governed by hard-and-fast rules.

So we're left with neither of us being statists and having nothing to fight over.

[grantmeaname]

Wow this is an excellent description! : http://wirkman.wordpress.com/2012/11/01/what-is-statism/

The blogger's definition is no less full of absolutes than your last one was!

[msilenus]

The problem with these label games, practically speaking, is that you cannot put much of a categorical wedge between anything the U.S. is doing now (which might be controversial, if new) and the New Deal.

So either:
 a) We're all statists.
 b) None of us are.
 c) I am a statist, and you are not --but no one cares what you think because Social Security is so popular that your opposition to it makes you sound crazy.

[Khan]

I just want to be clear on one thing...

Well the Obama admin is actively subverting the 4th amending in practice, and doing all it can judicially to continue it, so I do think you would find a lot of people who are happy to ignore parts of the bill of rights.

You... do know that Bush was just as bad on civil rights and eviscerating the Bill of Rights... right?

[matchewed]

Those definitions amount to "Step 1: Name the things that anger/scare me and I disagree with. Step 2: Group them under a term ending with -ist or -ism. Step 3: Then proceed to bludgeon people I disagree with using that term. Step 4: ????? Step 5: Profit."

Previous examples of this include; Soviet propaganda about Capitalists and US propaganda about Socialists.

All of these are various methods of providing power to the Outrage Machine. This post has been brought to you by the Outrage Machine. The Outrage Machine, powering society's need to reduce things to black and white without any consideration of nuance or complexity since Grok accused Ungh of dropping that rock on his foot on purpose.

[CDP45]

I just want to be clear on one thing...

Well the Obama admin is actively subverting the 4th amending in practice, and doing all it can judicially to continue it, so I do think you would find a lot of people who are happy to ignore parts of the bill of rights.

You... do know that Bush was just as bad on civil rights and eviscerating the Bill of Rights... right?

I'm glad you can be consistent and recognize Obama is just as bad, now let's help everyone else recognize this!

[GuitarStv]

The jump where you tend to lose me is the one where you go from 'the current guy in charge could be better, and there's some waste in government' to 'so taxes are theft and we need to destroy all government because it provides nothing of value'.

[CDP45]

Those definitions amount to "Step 1: Name the things that anger/scare me and I disagree with. Step 2: Group them under a term ending with -ist or -ism. Step 3: Then proceed to bludgeon people I disagree with using that term. Step 4: ????? Step 5: Profit."

Previous examples of this include; Soviet propaganda about Capitalists and US propaganda about Socialists.

All of these are various methods of providing power to the Outrage Machine. This post has been brought to you by the Outrage Machine. The Outrage Machine, powering society's need to reduce things to black and white without any consideration of nuance or complexity since Grok accused Ungh of dropping that rock on his foot on purpose.

Isn't the MMM movement predicated on outrage too? Isn't that what motivates "Face-punching?" I think outrage is needed to motivate action.

Somethings are simple in life, like not spending more than you earn, and to me, respecting people's right to privacy and not building multi-billion dollar agencies with thousands of employees collecting everyone's electronic signals.

Is it too black and white to say don't buy an F350 if you don't need it to haul horses or heavy equipment for a living?

[matchewed]

Those definitions amount to "Step 1: Name the things that anger/scare me and I disagree with. Step 2: Group them under a term ending with -ist or -ism. Step 3: Then proceed to bludgeon people I disagree with using that term. Step 4: ????? Step 5: Profit."

Previous examples of this include; Soviet propaganda about Capitalists and US propaganda about Socialists.

All of these are various methods of providing power to the Outrage Machine. This post has been brought to you by the Outrage Machine. The Outrage Machine, powering society's need to reduce things to black and white without any consideration of nuance or complexity since Grok accused Ungh of dropping that rock on his foot on purpose.

Isn't the MMM movement predicated on outrage too? Isn't that what motivates "Face-punching?" I think outrage is needed to motivate action.

Somethings are simple in life, like not spending more than you earn, and to me, respecting people's right to privacy and not building multi-billion dollar agencies with thousands of employees collecting everyone's electronic signals.

Is it too black and white to say don't buy an F350 if you don't need it to haul horses or heavy equipment for a living?

One of my favorite quotes of the day -

When you consciously limit your arguments to the nonsense, concretized babbling of the weakest opponent, you're not engaging in a real exchange. You're bullying the dumb kid. You're pretending that he oppresses you—the worst possible and most disingenuous response—when the truth is that everyone who would lower themselves to the fundamentalism fight is a junkyard dog, [who's objective is] to create a war that doesn't even exist.

Slight editing of the quote as the original author (Jacob Clifton) indicated that the creation of a war that doesn't exist is based off of lobbyist and advertising dollars. I don't necessarily believe that it is all that simple and throw it into a bigger bucket.

That being said. No MMM is not built on outrage. His outrage is tongue-in-cheek, designed to be a comedic foil for the personal and financial blogging he does. His outrage is comedy, yours is vitriolic. Invoking his name doesn't make your argument correct either.

Yes some things are simple in life. No where did anyone say they weren't. Yes spending less than you earn is easy. I do find it funny that you're now going to drag personal privacy into this as A) it has nothing to do with what is being discussed, B) is a complicated issue regarding who is collecting what information, C) you feel that your actions out in a virtual public domain somehow have a protection of privacy, D) which multi-billion dollar organization again?

Yes it is too black and white because it ignores the details and nuance of an individual's experience. If that person likes big trucks, derives pleasure from it, is planning to build a camper on top, or any number of possible reasons why they will buy it, then who are you to say whether or not it is black or white. The point of mocking the clown car habits has several reasons. One already mentioned comedic foil. Another one, an admitted environmentalist bias. And a third to prompt a concept of introspection into your decisions to ensure that you are maximizing your happiness with minimizing your expenses. But again this has little to do with your particular Outrage Machine.

[CDP45]

Those definitions amount to "Step 1: Name the things that anger/scare me and I disagree with. Step 2: Group them under a term ending with -ist or -ism. Step 3: Then proceed to bludgeon people I disagree with using that term. Step 4: ????? Step 5: Profit."

Previous examples of this include; Soviet propaganda about Capitalists and US propaganda about Socialists.

All of these are various methods of providing power to the Outrage Machine. This post has been brought to you by the Outrage Machine. The Outrage Machine, powering society's need to reduce things to black and white without any consideration of nuance or complexity since Grok accused Ungh of dropping that rock on his foot on purpose.

Isn't the MMM movement predicated on outrage too? Isn't that what motivates "Face-punching?" I think outrage is needed to motivate action.

Somethings are simple in life, like not spending more than you earn, and to me, respecting people's right to privacy and not building multi-billion dollar agencies with thousands of employees collecting everyone's electronic signals.

Is it too black and white to say don't buy an F350 if you don't need it to haul horses or heavy equipment for a living?

One of my favorite quotes of the day -

When you consciously limit your arguments to the nonsense, concretized babbling of the weakest opponent, you're not engaging in a real exchange. You're bullying the dumb kid. You're pretending that he oppresses you—the worst possible and most disingenuous response—when the truth is that everyone who would lower themselves to the fundamentalism fight is a junkyard dog, [who's objective is] to create a war that doesn't even exist.

Slight editing of the quote as the original author (Jacob Clifton) indicated that the creation of a war that doesn't exist is based off of lobbyist and advertising dollars. I don't necessarily believe that it is all that simple and throw it into a bigger bucket.

That being said. No MMM is not built on outrage. His outrage is tongue-in-cheek, designed to be a comedic foil for the personal and financial blogging he does. His outrage is comedy, yours is vitriolic. Invoking his name doesn't make your argument correct either.

Yes some things are simple in life. No where did anyone say they weren't. Yes spending less than you earn is easy. I do find it funny that you're now going to drag personal privacy into this as A) it has nothing to do with what is being discussed, B) is a complicated issue regarding who is collecting what information, C) you feel that your actions out in a virtual public domain somehow have a protection of privacy, D) which multi-billion dollar organization again?

Yes it is too black and white because it ignores the details and nuance of an individual's experience. If that person likes big trucks, derives pleasure from it, is planning to build a camper on top, or any number of possible reasons why they will buy it, then who are you to say whether or not it is black or white. The point of mocking the clown car habits has several reasons. One already mentioned comedic foil. Another one, an admitted environmentalist bias. And a third to prompt a concept of introspection into your decisions to ensure that you are maximizing your happiness with minimizing your expenses. But again this has little to do with your particular Outrage Machine.

Yes everything is relative, the pragmatists rule the day, because I could never turn that argument against yours by saying you're motivation for minimizing the concern for human rights is due to your payments as a government employee or otherwise direct monetary benefit received thereof.

So if one has a personal bias for some position, mocks the opponents , and does so for comedic value, and asks readers to personally reflect on their actions, that expression is not "outrage." Yet if I have concern for the violation of human rights of my fellow man that is "outrage" and is somehow motivated by personal profit and should be immediately dismissed? I mentioned a method of argumentation due the fact we are on his site and there does seem to be some well-founded outrage in his message. My success isn't built on outrage either, but there sure are some outrageous things going on in this world.

Oh yes the ad hominem quote is quite sly, but I don't concede on that basis. Apparently it is you with the limited cognitive abilities in that my argument is totally concerned with individual rights, privacy one of them, and the basis against statism.

Since you offered defenses of state abuses of the right to privacy, so you not think people have a right to it? Does a written letter addressed only to a loved one demand privacy? Is a specifically addressed text message not the same? How about a call to a loved ones phone?

In reply, a) yes it does, b) no it's not, c) yes, I bet this forum wouldn't last if Facebook logins were mandatory, and d) the government agencies.

[matchewed]

Those definitions amount to "Step 1: Name the things that anger/scare me and I disagree with. Step 2: Group them under a term ending with -ist or -ism. Step 3: Then proceed to bludgeon people I disagree with using that term. Step 4: ????? Step 5: Profit."

Previous examples of this include; Soviet propaganda about Capitalists and US propaganda about Socialists.

All of these are various methods of providing power to the Outrage Machine. This post has been brought to you by the Outrage Machine. The Outrage Machine, powering society's need to reduce things to black and white without any consideration of nuance or complexity since Grok accused Ungh of dropping that rock on his foot on purpose.

Isn't the MMM movement predicated on outrage too? Isn't that what motivates "Face-punching?" I think outrage is needed to motivate action.

Somethings are simple in life, like not spending more than you earn, and to me, respecting people's right to privacy and not building multi-billion dollar agencies with thousands of employees collecting everyone's electronic signals.

Is it too black and white to say don't buy an F350 if you don't need it to haul horses or heavy equipment for a living?

One of my favorite quotes of the day -

When you consciously limit your arguments to the nonsense, concretized babbling of the weakest opponent, you're not engaging in a real exchange. You're bullying the dumb kid. You're pretending that he oppresses you—the worst possible and most disingenuous response—when the truth is that everyone who would lower themselves to the fundamentalism fight is a junkyard dog, [who's objective is] to create a war that doesn't even exist.

Slight editing of the quote as the original author (Jacob Clifton) indicated that the creation of a war that doesn't exist is based off of lobbyist and advertising dollars. I don't necessarily believe that it is all that simple and throw it into a bigger bucket.

That being said. No MMM is not built on outrage. His outrage is tongue-in-cheek, designed to be a comedic foil for the personal and financial blogging he does. His outrage is comedy, yours is vitriolic. Invoking his name doesn't make your argument correct either.

Yes some things are simple in life. No where did anyone say they weren't. Yes spending less than you earn is easy. I do find it funny that you're now going to drag personal privacy into this as A) it has nothing to do with what is being discussed, B) is a complicated issue regarding who is collecting what information, C) you feel that your actions out in a virtual public domain somehow have a protection of privacy, D) which multi-billion dollar organization again?

Yes it is too black and white because it ignores the details and nuance of an individual's experience. If that person likes big trucks, derives pleasure from it, is planning to build a camper on top, or any number of possible reasons why they will buy it, then who are you to say whether or not it is black or white. The point of mocking the clown car habits has several reasons. One already mentioned comedic foil. Another one, an admitted environmentalist bias. And a third to prompt a concept of introspection into your decisions to ensure that you are maximizing your happiness with minimizing your expenses. But again this has little to do with your particular Outrage Machine.

Yes everything is relative, the pragmatists rule the day, because I could never turn that argument against yours by saying you're motivation for minimizing the concern for human rights is due to your payments as a government employee or otherwise direct monetary benefit received thereof.

So if one has a personal bias for some position, mocks the opponents , and does so for comedic value, and asks readers to personally reflect on their actions, that expression is not "outrage." Yet if I have concern for the violation of human rights of my fellow man that is "outrage" and is somehow motivated by personal profit and should be immediately dismissed? I mentioned a method of argumentation due the fact we are on his site and there does seem to be some well-founded outrage in his message. My success isn't built on outrage either, but there sure are some outrageous things going on in this world.

Oh yes the ad hominem quote is quite sly, but I don't concede on that basis. Apparently it is you with the limited cognitive abilities in that my argument is totally concerned with individual rights, privacy one of them, and the basis against statism.

Since you offered defenses of state abuses of the right to privacy, so you not think people have a right to it? Does a written letter addressed only to a loved one demand privacy? Is a specifically addressed text message not the same? How about a call to a loved ones phone?

In reply, a) yes it does, b) no it's not, c) yes, I bet this forum wouldn't last if Facebook logins were mandatory, and d) the government agencies.

You'd have to prove that I'm motivated by minimizing the concern for human rights, that I'm paid as a government employee, or receiving direct benefits first. And none of those are true. And let's address this for a minute because I think you're crossing a line here. If I say your argument is too black and white, that you pick and choose to shout oppression when others say "I'm willing to do so", in order to drum up outrage it is not ad hominem. No where was anything said about you. However you have now accused me directly of not being concerned about human rights and that I have limited cognitive ability. I am concerned about human rights and don't call me stupid. I will report your post. Try to address my points instead of relying on insult. If you prove to be incapable of addressing the points then maybe you need to evaluate your stance on these outrageous issues instead of relying on insult and overly simplified labeling.

I never said that you are motivated by personal profit. I honestly don't know your personal motivation. If I were to venture a guess it is mostly outrage. And therein lies the difference. To be motivated by outrage is "The Outrage Machine." When you've got nothing left but to spit phrases at people and label them statists in an effort to discredit them you've got nothing left but your outrage. Honestly when someone pulled up a definition of the word statist from a neutral source you have been quick to dismiss it and insert your own biased source. You are so unwilling to even acknowledge what has been said and throw up your blinders in order to claim that some other definition is more definite because it agrees with your worldview.

I do think people have a right to privacy. Nowhere did I say you don't. You just need to define what modes of communication are private and what aren't. I think you don't understand what I said though when I mentioned that it is a complicated issue. The reason I don't think you understand is highlighted here -

b) no it's not, c) yes, I bet this forum wouldn't last if Facebook logins were mandatory

Regardless of the Facebook login or not, how anonymous (read private) do you think you are on this board? I'd agree that you have a right to privacy on your personal communications to other people through certain channels. But the exchanges we have here are the equivalent to hanging out in someone's backyard and chatting. It isn't all that private. Yet you seem to easily claim that it is not complicated and you have a right to privacy within it. And you missed my point about D). Where is your outrage at all the telecom, software, and social media companies? They also are billion dollar organizations who collect your data. Are they not violating your rights? Why aren't you suing them?

[CDP45]

I recognize that this isn't the perfect medium to communicate, and there is room for misunderstanding, and especially equivocation, so let's recap.

No where was anything said about you. However you have now accused me directly of not being concerned about human rights and that I have limited cognitive ability. I am concerned about human rights and don't call me stupid. I will report your post. Try to address my points instead of relying on insult. If you prove to be incapable of addressing the points then maybe you need to evaluate your stance on these outrageous issues instead of relying on insult and overly simplified labeling.

Here's where you do this to me:

One of my favorite quotes of the day -

When you consciously limit your arguments to the nonsense, concretized babbling of the weakest opponent, you're not engaging in a real exchange. You're bullying the dumb kid. You're pretending that he oppresses you—the worst possible and most disingenuous response—when the truth is that everyone who would lower themselves to the fundamentalism fight is a junkyard dog, [who's objective is] to create a war that doesn't even exist.

Just because you didn't explicitly say I am a dumb kid, and instead posted a quote, doesn't mean it wasn't insulting, as your action revealed your intention to do so. At least be consistent and report yourself then.


Next-

I never said that you are motivated by personal profit. I honestly don't know your personal motivation.

Here's where you accuse me of being motivated by personal profit:

Slight editing of the quote as the original author (Jacob Clifton) indicated that the creation of a war that doesn't exist is based off of lobbyist and advertising dollars.

and

Those definitions amount to "Step 1: Name the things that anger/scare me and I disagree with. Step 2: Group them under a term ending with -ist or -ism. Step 3: Then proceed to bludgeon people I disagree with using that term. Step 4: ????? Step 5: Profit."

You'd have to prove that I'm motivated by minimizing the concern for human rights, that I'm paid as a government employee, or receiving direct benefits first. And none of those are true.

I honestly don't know your personal motivation.

My point being you've made no attempt to back up your accusation about my profit motive for being concerned/"outraged." So why even bring that up?

If you can move past the unfounded accusations and adhomium attacks, we can focus on a concrete issue:

When I said this:

respecting people's right to privacy and not building multi-billion dollar agencies with thousands of employees collecting everyone's electronic signals.

You blatantly equivocated that statement to be about privacy on this forum:
 

C) you feel that your actions out in a virtual public domain somehow have a protection of privacy,

and

 Regardless of the Facebook login or not, how anonymous (read private) do you think you are on this board? I'd agree that you have a right to privacy on your personal communications to other people through certain channels. But the exchanges we have here are the equivalent to hanging out in someone's backyard and chatting. It isn't all that private. Yet you seem to easily claim that it is not complicated and you have a right to privacy within it. And you missed my point about

1. Duh I'm calling out into cyber space to unknown masses (the posts have counts of how many people have read this post) so I'm obviously not concerned about the privacy of these words.
2. So the real question is can you bring yourself to recognize the violations by the administration's actions given your supposed belief in personal privacy rights?

[grantmeaname]

Here's where you accuse me of being motivated by personal profit:

Slight editing of the quote as the original author (Jacob Clifton) indicated that the creation of a war that doesn't exist is based off of lobbyist and advertising dollars.

He edited the quote to remove the part about profit.

Those definitions amount to "Step 1: Name the things that anger/scare me and I disagree with. Step 2: Group them under a term ending with -ist or -ism. Step 3: Then proceed to bludgeon people I disagree with using that term. Step 4: ????? Step 5: Profit."

Know your meme or you'll accidentally blow up about nothing.

You'd have to prove that I'm motivated by minimizing the concern for human rights, that I'm paid as a government employee, or receiving direct benefits first. And none of those are true.

I honestly don't know your personal motivation.

Those are things you said to him. I don't know how they hurt your feelings.

adhomium

not a word

equivocated

not the right word

I really don't see where there was ad hominem by anybody but you here. I guess matchewed's quote was close, but it doesn't say 'you're a junkyard dog', it says 'arguing in a fundamentalist way lowers the level of discourse'.

[matchewed]

I recognize that this isn't the perfect medium to communicate, and there is room for misunderstanding, and especially equivocation, so let's recap.

No where was anything said about you. However you have now accused me directly of not being concerned about human rights and that I have limited cognitive ability. I am concerned about human rights and don't call me stupid. I will report your post. Try to address my points instead of relying on insult. If you prove to be incapable of addressing the points then maybe you need to evaluate your stance on these outrageous issues instead of relying on insult and overly simplified labeling.

Here's where you do this to me:

One of my favorite quotes of the day -

When you consciously limit your arguments to the nonsense, concretized babbling of the weakest opponent, you're not engaging in a real exchange. You're bullying the dumb kid. You're pretending that he oppresses you—the worst possible and most disingenuous response—when the truth is that everyone who would lower themselves to the fundamentalism fight is a junkyard dog, [who's objective is] to create a war that doesn't even exist.

Just because you didn't explicitly say I am a dumb kid, and instead posted a quote, doesn't mean it wasn't insulting, as your action revealed your intention to do so. At least be consistent and report yourself then.

Please read that again. It is accusing the person who is consciously limiting their argument to be a bully, not that they're dumb. It doesn't say that you are a dumb kid, but that your rhetoric is the metaphorical equivalent of bullying the dumb kid. Reading comprehension FTW.

Next-

I never said that you are motivated by personal profit. I honestly don't know your personal motivation.

Here's where you accuse me of being motivated by personal profit:

Slight editing of the quote as the original author (Jacob Clifton) indicated that the creation of a war that doesn't exist is based off of lobbyist and advertising dollars.

and

Those definitions amount to "Step 1: Name the things that anger/scare me and I disagree with. Step 2: Group them under a term ending with -ist or -ism. Step 3: Then proceed to bludgeon people I disagree with using that term. Step 4: ????? Step 5: Profit."

For the first quote of mine would you care to read the remainder of it where I'm saying I don't agree with Jacob Clifton? k thx! Maybe it will help if I repeat it.

I don't necessarily believe that it is all that simple and throw it into a bigger bucket.

You'd have to prove that I'm motivated by minimizing the concern for human rights, that I'm paid as a government employee, or receiving direct benefits first. And none of those are true.

I honestly don't know your personal motivation.

My point being you've made no attempt to back up your accusation about my profit motive for being concerned/"outraged." So why even bring that up?

I brought up my motivation because you accused me of being motivated by those things. You do remember that right?
 

If you can move past the unfounded accusations and adhomium attacks, we can focus on a concrete issue:

I haven't, as I've already explained, levered any unfounded accusations or ad hominim attacks. The only things I have directly levered against you is oversimplification of an argument, appropriation of terms in order to use it as a bludgeon against people you disagree with, and manufacturing outrage.

When I said this:

respecting people's right to privacy and not building multi-billion dollar agencies with thousands of employees collecting everyone's electronic signals.

You blatantly equivocated that statement to be about privacy on this forum:
 

C) you feel that your actions out in a virtual public domain somehow have a protection of privacy,

and

 Regardless of the Facebook login or not, how anonymous (read private) do you think you are on this board? I'd agree that you have a right to privacy on your personal communications to other people through certain channels. But the exchanges we have here are the equivalent to hanging out in someone's backyard and chatting. It isn't all that private. Yet you seem to easily claim that it is not complicated and you have a right to privacy within it. And you missed my point about

1. Duh I'm calling out into cyber space to unknown masses (the posts have counts of how many people have read this post) so I'm obviously not concerned about the privacy of these words.
2. So the real question is can you bring yourself to recognize the violations by the administration's actions given your supposed belief in personal privacy rights?

Is this post about your appropriation of the term statist or are you just going to get nitpicky and keep chopping up what I say into sections which fit your narrative? At least if you're going to attempt to make it look like you're the poor abused poster getting all beat up, would you actually address any points I've made? Namely that there are public and private organizations who constantly track your information so why is the US government a special snowflake for your outrage machine?

1. /Sigh. You really don't understand my point about the complication of privacy issues and how a blanket approach like "respect people's right to privacy" doesn't translate well unless you look at it with some consideration to the more and more complex concept of what we mean by privacy.

2. I can bring myself to realize the violations the US government and aforementioned private organizations have been doing hand in hand.

[msilenus]

CDP45,

If you don't mind, I'm curious: what are your thoughts about Social Security in the context of this discussion?  Do you think it is a statist program?  Do you support it?  Would you like to see it repealed?

[GrayGhost]

Allow me to cut in and mention that even if you do like Social Security in theory, you can't possibly be a Mustachian and support it as it stands. Here is why: it is a PAYGO system.

That means that the so-called Social Security trust fund you've heard of is nothing more than a portal. Each year, money (from taxes) goes in and money goes out in the form of Social Security payments to the program's recipients. If there is an excess of money, it automatically goes to pay down other government debt. (So no, no particular person or group has raided the security trust fund, it happens automatically).

In other words, there is time delay for compound interest to do its thing. The system itself is based around the assumption that at any given time, taxes will cover Social Security payments.

The result is that while current Social Security recipients have had a pretty good deal, the deal the younger generation gets will not be quite the same. This is a matter of math. You cannot have $X in income and pay $1.5X in benefits, not without going into debt. So, taxes must rise, benefits must drop, or the program must be radically restructured so that it is no longer a PAYGO system.

This is not a matter of ideology, these are simple mathematical facts that will hold true unless unforeseen societal changes (f ex, people decide to have more kids again) alter the numbers.

As far as me goes, I am not an ideologue, and I would be alright Social Security if it was set up in a rational manner. For example, my understanding is that the Swedish pension system is set up so that recipients get what current workers can afford to pay--and no more. That is sustainable, Social Security is not. And I don't think anyone, libertarian, Mustachian, or otherwise, should support programs that are so poorly constructed.

[msilenus]

GrayGhost, I agree with everything you say on a factual basis, (except the part where you're blowing Mustachianism Policeman's whistle --that's a little shrill.)  But I don't see a point.  At least not one that you haven't fatally undermined.

If you like what the Swedes have, then it's hard to see what the problem is with SS.  Is it the way SS taxes don't compound?  The Swedes don't have that.  Is it the way there's no firm guarantee that the next generation will have equal benefits?  Ditto.  Or is it how in Sweden it's precisely understood how their program will behave in the future if they don't change their laws?  We have that, too: if the SS trust fund runs out, SS starts paying out only what current workers are paying in their SS taxes --when it breaks, it becomes exactly like Sweden's pension system!  They're not hiding what that looks like, either.  IIRC, it's projected at something like 75% of current payments.* 

I think you're confused about which of these systems is a running escalator which might break and become stairs one day if no one bothers to make adjustments, and which one is just plain old stairs.  I'm happy with our escalator, thank you very much. 

BTW, check out Sweden's population pyramid and ours.  We're going to do a much better job of providing stable benefits for the foreseeable future.  Which is a very long time.

* Which will still be a good deal for me, and for many other early retirees.  What they *don't* tell you about SS, is that you get diminishing returns on what you pay in.  The diminishment becomes pretty extreme once you enter your 31st year of work.

CDP45, I still await your answer with bells bating all over my breath.  That's what the kids say, right?

[CDP45]

Please read that again. It is accusing the person who is consciously limiting their argument to be a bully, not that they're dumb. It doesn't say that you are a dumb kid, but that your rhetoric is the metaphorical equivalent of bullying the dumb kid. Reading comprehension FTW.

For the first quote of mine would you care to read the remainder of it where I'm saying I don't agree with Jacob Clifton? k thx! Maybe it will help if I repeat it.

I don't necessarily believe that it is all that simple and throw it into a bigger bucket.

I apparently missed the nuance of quote in which you agreed with some of it but disagreed

When I said this:

respecting people's right to privacy and not building multi-billion dollar agencies with thousands of employees collecting everyone's electronic signals.

You blatantly equivocated that statement to be about privacy on this forum:
 

C) you feel that your actions out in a virtual public domain somehow have a protection of privacy,

and

 Regardless of the Facebook login or not, how anonymous (read private) do you think you are on this board? I'd agree that you have a right to privacy on your personal communications to other people through certain channels. But the exchanges we have here are the equivalent to hanging out in someone's backyard and chatting. It isn't all that private. Yet you seem to easily claim that it is not complicated and you have a right to privacy within it. And you missed my point about

1. Duh I'm calling out into cyber space to unknown masses (the posts have counts of how many people have read this post) so I'm obviously not concerned about the privacy of these words.
2. So the real question is can you bring yourself to recognize the violations by the administration's actions given your supposed belief in personal privacy rights?

Is this post about your appropriation of the term statist or are you just going to get nitpicky and keep chopping up what I say into sections which fit your narrative? At least if you're going to attempt to make it look like you're the poor abused poster getting all beat up, would you actually address any points I've made?

The only things I have directly levered against you is oversimplification of an argument, appropriation of terms in order to use it as a bludgeon against people you disagree with, and manufacturing outrage.

This was the majority of your argument prior, so yes lets discuss an actual topic and move away from meta arguing about argumentation.
 

Namely that there are public and private organizations who constantly track your information so why is the US government a special snowflake for your outrage machine?

1. /Sigh. You really don't understand my point about the complication of privacy issues and how a blanket approach like "respect people's right to privacy" doesn't translate well unless you look at it with some consideration to the more and more complex concept of what we mean by privacy.

2. I can bring myself to realize the violations the US government and aforementioned private organizations have been doing hand in hand.

Excellent, I am glad we have found a limit in your mind of the state's action. The reason the govt gets my particular scrutiny is that they seem to be the only entity concerned with imprisoning, torturing, and also stealing from the population on a systematic basis. I have never heard of google threatening to do this based on the content of people's private communications. I also don't find these private organizations highly culpable as they are under threat from the govt to comply.

[matchewed]

So you don't want to discuss liberal statism as you originally posted. Instead you want to discuss privacy rights. Dude, you're all over the board here. Red herring much? Go start another shit show of a thread if you want to discuss privacy rights.

I'm not having a meta argument about arguing. I'm objecting to your appropriation of a term solely for the opportunity to bludgeon people you disagree with using that term. Namely the whole point of the thread you started. Feel free to keep using your outrage as a hammer when you meet people that don't agree exactly with your worldview. I'm sure it'll be a successful way to navigate the world in general and have productive discussions with people.

[msilenus]

My personal theory is that he doesn't have any fundamental problem with Social Security.  Confronting that in this context has helped him realize that he's a statist just like basically everyone else in the country.  At that point, it's pretty natural for the thread to move on.

[CDP45]

So you don't want to discuss liberal statism as you originally posted. Instead you want to discuss privacy rights. Dude, you're all over the board here. Red herring much? Go start another shit show of a thread if you want to discuss privacy rights.

I'm not having a meta argument about arguing. I'm objecting to your appropriation of a term solely for the opportunity to bludgeon people you disagree with using that term. Namely the whole point of the thread you started. Feel free to keep using your outrage as a hammer when you meet people that don't agree exactly with your worldview. I'm sure it'll be a successful way to navigate the world in general and have productive discussions with people.

I used the violations of privacy rights as an example of state overreach, and since we agree on that front I hope it get you thinking that maybe there are more actions that are fundamentally wrong. Unfortunately most discourse is relegated to I'm on team blue and any criticism of team blue means your on team red so all of your points are invalid and I will staunchly defend team blue no matter the moral, practical, or logical implications.

I guess I started this topic to discuss with people who might actually be statists and understand their view because it's hard for me to understand their motivations sans nefarious intention. 

You're right, it is a strong word, but I feel the outcomes of statist acts and policy are far more damaging. Also I think it's important to be morally consistent with advocacy and not base one's beleifs on "this is what team X thinks so that's what I think." There's also another group of "pragmatists" who conveniently position themselves as a disinterested, reasonable, and most concerned with efficiency using it to support government action they agree with (such as social security) and any SCRUTINY upon their pet is met only with defense and blindness towards any costs and harm done (hence my reaction to the recent Mr Frugal Touqe post).

[CDP45]

My personal theory is that he doesn't have any fundamental problem with Social Security.  Confronting that in this context has helped him realize that he's a statist just like basically everyone else in the country.  At that point, it's pretty natural for the thread to move on.

I have a nice surprise for you then! I have spent my life being very different from everyone else in this country, why do you think I'm on this website? I'm attracted to his ideas and principles as I think they are moral and will also improve my life.

I also think your comment is tongue in cheek as I'm sure you believe SS is the most defensible program and there's no point to even questioning it so we can just laugh off anyone who does. But I'm happy to go down that path.

Is it justified in your mind because it's
1) Politically popular
2) administratively efficient
3) is a type of charity
4) meets the needs of the poor
5) is egalitarian in structure

[Daley]

My personal theory is that he doesn't have any fundamental problem with Social Security.  Confronting that in this context has helped him realize that he's a statist just like basically everyone else in the country.  At that point, it's pretty natural for the thread to move on.

I have a nice surprise for you then! I have spent my life being very different from everyone else in this country, why do you think I'm on this website? I'm attracted to his ideas and principles as I think they are moral and will also improve my life.

I also think your comment is tongue in cheek as I'm sure you believe SS is the most defensible program and there's no point to even questioning it so we can just laugh off anyone who does. But I'm happy to go down that path.

Is it justified in your mind because it's
1) Politically popular
2) administratively efficient
3) is a type of charity
4) meets the needs of the poor
5) is egalitarian in structure

You still haven't answered the original question. Instead, you're turning it around and attacking others to deflect. I too would like to hear your ideas on the original questions answered instead of seeing you tilt at windmills and shifting the topic, Don.

If you don't mind, I'm curious: what are your thoughts about Social Security in the context of this discussion?  Do you think it is a statist program?  Do you support it?  Would you like to see it repealed?

How about you focus some of your verbosity onto the directly relevant questions made in response to the topic that you started. If you are so confident in the quality of your own ideologies to warrant starting this thread, why don't you actually present them for our edification and intellectual scrutiny so as to convert the rest of us instead of simply using them to badger anyone who doesn't agree with your world view. More flies with honey, etc.

[matchewed]

So you don't want to discuss liberal statism as you originally posted. Instead you want to discuss privacy rights. Dude, you're all over the board here. Red herring much? Go start another shit show of a thread if you want to discuss privacy rights.

I'm not having a meta argument about arguing. I'm objecting to your appropriation of a term solely for the opportunity to bludgeon people you disagree with using that term. Namely the whole point of the thread you started. Feel free to keep using your outrage as a hammer when you meet people that don't agree exactly with your worldview. I'm sure it'll be a successful way to navigate the world in general and have productive discussions with people.

I used the violations of privacy rights as an example of state overreach, and since we agree on that front I hope it get you thinking that maybe there are more actions that are fundamentally wrong. Unfortunately most discourse is relegated to I'm on team blue and any criticism of team blue means your on team red so all of your points are invalid and I will staunchly defend team blue no matter the moral, practical, or logical implications.

I guess I started this topic to discuss with people who might actually be statists and understand their view because it's hard for me to understand their motivations sans nefarious intention. 

You're right, it is a strong word, but I feel the outcomes of statist acts and policy are far more damaging. Also I think it's important to be morally consistent with advocacy and not base one's beleifs on "this is what team X thinks so that's what I think." There's also another group of "pragmatists" who conveniently position themselves as a disinterested, reasonable, and most concerned with efficiency using it to support government action they agree with (such as social security) and any SCRUTINY upon their pet is met only with defense and blindness towards any costs and harm done (hence my reaction to the recent Mr Frugal Touqe post).

Bolded for emphasis. The hallmark of fanatacism and unquestionable faith. Therein lies the difference and problem. I can readily admit to where there are problems in the world around me. I could go on and on about all the problems in the world that need to be fixed and this is a world I accept and work within to improve. You however look at those same problems and don't see solutions just something to lay your ideology upon. And then can't see inherent problems within your ideology.  You may have started this with a guess that you would be able to understand another world view but you've already preceded that with a statement that you will be unable to ever do so. It is why you're only capable of arguing in ideological snippets rather than entertain ideas or flush them out with nuance and detail. You've also have basically stated this is a path that the world needs to follow and damn the consequences. Any consequence is worth your worldview.

You mistake me because you think that when I don't agree 100% with you that I am incapable of seeing where things are wrong. Your unwavering viewpoint hampers your ability to comprehend that I actually agree with you on several points and throughout any discussion with you have admitted so. But you are taking the stance of the rigid and inflexible. I can never expect you to actually say something which would propose a solution outside of "Down with government" because you can't see any solution outside of that. Like you said you see things as colored teams red (read: black) and blue (read: white). You've already established and admitted your approach to things as being ideologically driven rather than practical. It is all or nothing to you.

I can see the nuance. You've self admitted to being incapable of doing so. You aren't starting threads like this to have a dialogue or try to understand someone's viewpoint. You've admitted you can't. You're starting threads like this to stoke the fires of your outrage; to become the outrage machine personified.

I don't think statism is a strong word at all. If you didn't inject your posts with such vitriol I'd take it as it is; a different word for governance. Now you're also seizing upon the term pragmatist in order to use it to insult. You're just taking anyone who disagrees with you and tossing them into a bucket because you only see these things as blue and red. You talk about people being defensive and blind to scrutiny? Pot, may I introduce you to kettle? He too is thoroughly black. But you won't get that either because you feel you are morally superior and won't even be able to entertain the possibility that another possibility exists.

[CDP45]

You still haven't answered the original question. Instead, you're turning it around and attacking others to deflect. I too would like to hear your ideas on the original questions answered instead of seeing you tilt at windmills and shifting the topic, Don.

If the original question is what the definition is I've given a good attempt:

Here's maybe a better one: "Statism is, then, the doctrine that a powerful central government should make policy based on targeted outcomes and not be limited by hard-and-fast rules about individual rights to property, or even security in their personal affairs."

Basically someone who thinks violent coercion is acceptable against individuals if there isn't enough resistance to stop it, and they have somehow consented to these acts of government. I would also say statists do not universally support individual rights, hence the split of liberal and conservative statism.

There was talk about using labels for the "outrage machine," but could you reply to which questions you would like me to answer?

[CDP45]

Bolded for emphasis. The hallmark of fanatacism and unquestionable faith. Therein lies the difference and problem. I can readily admit to where there are problems in the world around me.

Yes and I said I was glad.

I could go on and on about all the problems in the world that need to be fixed and this is a world I accept and work within to improve. You however look at those same problems and don't see solutions just something to lay your ideology upon.

Sometimes the solution is to just stop doing harm.

And then can't see inherent problems within your ideology.  You may have started this with a guess that you would be able to understand another world view but you've already preceded that with a statement that you will be unable to ever do so. It is why you're only capable of arguing in ideological snippets rather than entertain ideas or flush them out with nuance and detail. You've also have basically stated this is a path that the world needs to follow and damn the consequences. Any consequence is worth your worldview.

This was supposed to be a discussion about a definition. But were my questions about SS not nuanced and detailed or ideologically free for you?

Is it justified in your mind because it's
1) Politically popular
2) administratively efficient
3) is a type of charity
4) meets the needs of the poor
5) is egalitarian in structure

You mistake me because you think that when I don't agree 100% with you that I am incapable of seeing where things are wrong. Your unwavering viewpoint hampers your ability to comprehend that I actually agree with you on several points and throughout any discussion with you have admitted so. But you are taking the stance of the rigid and inflexible. I can never expect you to actually say something which would propose a solution outside of "Down with government" because you can't see any solution outside of that. Like you said you see things as colored teams red (read: black) and blue (read: white). You've already established and admitted your approach to things as being ideologically driven rather than practical. It is all or nothing to you.

This might be the case, because how do you think your argument holds if the topic were Slavery? I have a moral, practical, and logical opposition to slavery. Some topics I do think it's all or nothing.

I can see the nuance.

Great, let's discuss.

You've self admitted to being incapable of doing so.

Naw, I bet you'd think it would be tough to get along in this world if someone were unable to do so, yet here I am fat and happy.

You aren't starting threads like this to have a dialogue or try to understand someone's viewpoint. You've admitted you can't. You're starting threads like this to stoke the fires of your outrage; to become the outrage machine personified.

I am actually trying to do so right now.

I don't think statism is a strong word at all. If you didn't inject your posts with such vitriol I'd take it as it is; a different word for governance.

Euphemisms don't change reality. 

Now you're also seizing upon the term pragmatist in order to use it to insult. You're just taking anyone who disagrees with you and tossing them into a bucket because you only see these things as blue and red. You talk about people being defensive and blind to scrutiny? Pot, may I introduce you to kettle? He too is thoroughly black. But you won't get that either because you feel you are morally superior and won't even be able to entertain the possibility that another possibility exists.

Other possibilities certainly exist, why would I advocate for change if it had already come to fruition? I want to discuss people's ideas, not toss them in a bucket.

[Russ]

but could you reply to which questions you would like me to answer?

perhaps this one which was part of the post you just quoted

If you don't mind, I'm curious: what are your thoughts about Social Security in the context of this discussion?  Do you think it is a statist program?  Do you support it?  Would you like to see it repealed?

[matchewed]

Bolded for emphasis. The hallmark of fanatacism and unquestionable faith. Therein lies the difference and problem. I can readily admit to where there are problems in the world around me.

Yes and I said I was glad.

I could go on and on about all the problems in the world that need to be fixed and this is a world I accept and work within to improve. You however look at those same problems and don't see solutions just something to lay your ideology upon.

Sometimes the solution is to just stop doing harm.

That doesn't actually mean anything. Just saying "stop doing harm" is a meaningless statement as everything has negative consequences to it. There are downsides to almost every path that can be taken. Your blanket claim of just not doing harm shows that closed off view you maintain, and speaks more to your inability to see any inherent harm your system would create.

And then can't see inherent problems within your ideology.  You may have started this with a guess that you would be able to understand another world view but you've already preceded that with a statement that you will be unable to ever do so. It is why you're only capable of arguing in ideological snippets rather than entertain ideas or flush them out with nuance and detail. You've also have basically stated this is a path that the world needs to follow and damn the consequences. Any consequence is worth your worldview.

This was supposed to be a discussion about a definition. But were my questions about SS not nuanced and detailed or ideologically free for you?

Is it justified in your mind because it's
1) Politically popular
2) administratively efficient
3) is a type of charity
4) meets the needs of the poor
5) is egalitarian in structure

Because you didn't actually ask anything. Instead of asking a question you've made a statement. Applying those five things to someone's position prior to actually asking them what their position was. And haven't at all answered their questions which they asked first.

You mistake me because you think that when I don't agree 100% with you that I am incapable of seeing where things are wrong. Your unwavering viewpoint hampers your ability to comprehend that I actually agree with you on several points and throughout any discussion with you have admitted so. But you are taking the stance of the rigid and inflexible. I can never expect you to actually say something which would propose a solution outside of "Down with government" because you can't see any solution outside of that. Like you said you see things as colored teams red (read: black) and blue (read: white). You've already established and admitted your approach to things as being ideologically driven rather than practical. It is all or nothing to you.

This might be the case, because how do you think your argument holds if the topic were Slavery? I have a moral, practical, and logical opposition to slavery. Some topics I do think it's all or nothing.

That's the problem. You equate all things government as bad as slavery. Taxes = Slavery, laws = slavery, social security = slavery. You don't actually want to discuss these things. You just equate them to slavery which shows a distinct lack of discussing nuance. Hell in a previous discussion we've had when asked how conflicts would be resolved you pointed out private arbitration. That was pointed out to you as being enforced through our legal system, so what would cause someone to pursue private arbitration in the first place or even follow it when it was decided against them and you failed to provide any response. When held up to realistic scrutiny you fall back on things like slavery to bolster your points.

I can see the nuance.

Great, let's discuss.

You don't actually want to discuss. You're just going to do the same thing you have done on every discussion. Deflect and stoke the outrage fire.

You've self admitted to being incapable of doing so.

Naw, I bet you'd think it would be tough to get along in this world if someone were unable to do so, yet here I am fat and happy.

You aren't starting threads like this to have a dialogue or try to understand someone's viewpoint. You've admitted you can't. You're starting threads like this to stoke the fires of your outrage; to become the outrage machine personified.

I am actually trying to do so right now.

Really? Where have you demonstrated one attempt at understanding? Please, enlighten me?

I don't think statism is a strong word at all. If you didn't inject your posts with such vitriol I'd take it as it is; a different word for governance.

Euphemisms don't change reality.

What does that mean? Where did I use a euphemism in that line?

 

Now you're also seizing upon the term pragmatist in order to use it to insult. You're just taking anyone who disagrees with you and tossing them into a bucket because you only see these things as blue and red. You talk about people being defensive and blind to scrutiny? Pot, may I introduce you to kettle? He too is thoroughly black. But you won't get that either because you feel you are morally superior and won't even be able to entertain the possibility that another possibility exists.

Other possibilities certainly exist, why would I advocate for change if it had already come to fruition? I want to discuss people's ideas, not toss them in a bucket.

Like I asked, tell me where you've offered to discuss one single idea beyond "tear it all down because it is immoral"? Every time anyone has said or asked anything you just try to turn it around by accusing them of positions they don't take, bludgeoning them with stereotyping them as "liberal statists" or your term du jour "pragmatist", and generally avoiding questions. And yet you want to claim that you want to discuss? No, what you want isn't discussion but a validation of your outrage.

[Daley]

but could you reply to which questions you would like me to answer?

perhaps this one which was part of the post you just quoted

If you don't mind, I'm curious: what are your thoughts about Social Security in the context of this discussion?  Do you think it is a statist program?  Do you support it?  Would you like to see it repealed?

What Russ said.

[thepokercab]

how do you think your argument holds if the topic were Slavery?

I don't agree with taxes.  You know what else I don't agree with?  HITLER. 

Taxes=HITLER. 

Check and mate.   

[CDP45]

Bolded for emphasis. The hallmark of fanatacism and unquestionable faith. Therein lies the difference and problem. I can readily admit to where there are problems in the world around me.

Yes and I said I was glad.

I could go on and on about all the problems in the world that need to be fixed and this is a world I accept and work within to improve. You however look at those same problems and don't see solutions just something to lay your ideology upon.

Sometimes the solution is to just stop doing harm.

That doesn't actually mean anything. Just saying "stop doing harm" is a meaningless statement as everything has negative consequences to it. There are downsides to almost every path that can be taken. Your blanket claim of just not doing harm shows that closed off view you maintain, and speaks more to your inability to see any inherent harm your system would create.

I said sometimes, you're the one trying to bucket me into absolutes, you're argument is "there's no point in arguing with you because you're an absolutist and not a pragmatist therefore we will never come to any conclusions or compromises."

And then can't see inherent problems within your ideology.  You may have started this with a guess that you would be able to understand another world view but you've already preceded that with a statement that you will be unable to ever do so. It is why you're only capable of arguing in ideological snippets rather than entertain ideas or flush them out with nuance and detail. You've also have basically stated this is a path that the world needs to follow and damn the consequences. Any consequence is worth your worldview.

This was supposed to be a discussion about a definition. But were my questions about SS not nuanced and detailed or ideologically free for you?

Is it justified in your mind because it's
1) Politically popular
2) administratively efficient
3) is a type of charity
4) meets the needs of the poor
5) is egalitarian in structure

Because you didn't actually ask anything. Instead of asking a question you've made a statement. Applying those five things to someone's position prior to actually asking them what their position was. And haven't at all answered their questions which they asked first.

Quote from: msilenus on July 16, 2014, 01:52:52 PM

    If you don't mind, I'm curious: what are your thoughts about Social Security in the context of this discussion?  Do you think it is a statist program?  Do you support it?  Would you like to see it repealed?

Ok, yes i think it's statist, I don't support it, and would like to see it ended due problems with at least these 5 common justifications:
1) Politically popular
2) administratively efficient
3) is a type of charity
4) meets the needs of the poor
5) is egalitarian in structure

You mistake me because you think that when I don't agree 100% with you that I am incapable of seeing where things are wrong. Your unwavering viewpoint hampers your ability to comprehend that I actually agree with you on several points and throughout any discussion with you have admitted so. But you are taking the stance of the rigid and inflexible. I can never expect you to actually say something which would propose a solution outside of "Down with government" because you can't see any solution outside of that. Like you said you see things as colored teams red (read: black) and blue (read: white). You've already established and admitted your approach to things as being ideologically driven rather than practical. It is all or nothing to you.

This might be the case, because how do you think your argument holds if the topic were Slavery? I have a moral, practical, and logical opposition to slavery. Some topics I do think it's all or nothing.

That's the problem. You equate all things government as bad as slavery. Taxes = Slavery, laws = slavery, social security = slavery.

Wrong, taxes are robbery and theft ;) At the least involuntary. And no not everything equals slavery, I was pointing out your pragmatist argument wouldn't work very well against the practice of slavery which I used as an example of black and white right and wrong, and just because other topics can be distilled to right or wrong doesn't mean they equate to slavery, nor am I trying to do so. Because A implies B and C implies B doesn't mean A=C.

 

You don't actually want to discuss these things. You just equate them to slavery which shows a distinct lack of discussing nuance. Hell in a previous discussion we've had when asked how conflicts would be resolved you pointed out private arbitration. That was pointed out to you as being enforced through our legal system, so what would cause someone to pursue private arbitration in the first place or even follow it when it was decided against them and you failed to provide any response. When held up to realistic scrutiny you fall back on things like slavery to bolster your points.

Hmm, I don't want to discuss, and I'm not nuanced yet I talked for paragraphs at length about private contracts and arbitration systems? And I'm positive slavery didn't enter that discussion.

We were discussing the nuances of privacy violations earlier, I'm happy to start discussing SS, but I'm also receiving flak for straying off the main topic of the definition of liberal statism...

You've self admitted to being incapable of doing so.

Naw, I bet you'd think it would be tough to get along in this world if someone were unable to do so, yet here I am fat and happy.

You aren't starting threads like this to have a dialogue or try to understand someone's viewpoint. You've admitted you can't. You're starting threads like this to stoke the fires of your outrage; to become the outrage machine personified. [/quote


I am actually trying to do so right now.

Really? Where have you demonstrated one attempt at understanding? Please, enlighten me?

I don't think statism is a strong word at all. If you didn't inject your posts with such vitriol I'd take it as it is; a different word for governance.

Euphemisms don't change reality.

What does that mean? Where did I use a euphemism in that line?