ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags centrism , neoliberalism , progressivism , socialism

Reply
Old 3rd March 2019, 08:10 PM   #41
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 21,801
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
That's not even implicit in anything he said.
I ABSOLUTELY got that message.
__________________
Try
Science, not superstition.
Reason, not revelation.
Education, not epiphanies
Intellect, not ignorance.
.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2019, 08:17 PM   #42
Venom
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 2,746
I got that message as well.
Venom is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2019, 08:35 PM   #43
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 43,793
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
I ABSOLUTELY got that message.
Originally Posted by Venom View Post
I got that message as well.
Consider it this way: is anything he said inconsistent with elections being about choosing the least bad option? That doesn't require equivalency between candidates, AND it doesn't include electing whoever knows what's best for everyone.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2019, 08:36 PM   #44
Norman Alexander
Philosopher
 
Norman Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 5,878
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Bro, name a year that didn't fail the first hurdle.
Most other presidents at least tried to make progress from the outset. Even GWB shone in his immediate response to 9/11 in 2001, and he was the previous trophy-holder for Worst President Ever.

Trump started in a dumpster and facing the wrong way, headed rapidly downhill, and hasn't changed course since. So...2016 is my final answer.
__________________
...our governments are just trying to protect us from terror. In the same way that someone banging a hornets’ nest with a stick is trying to protect us from hornets. Frankie Boyle, Guardian, July 2015
Norman Alexander is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2019, 08:48 PM   #45
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 43,793
Originally Posted by Norman Alexander View Post
Most other presidents at least tried to make progress from the outset.
Perhaps. But that doesn't actually change anything he said.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2019, 09:19 PM   #46
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 21,801
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Perhaps. But that doesn't actually change anything he said.
Say what? Who's trying to change what he said?

On pretty much every yardstick Trump is taking a hammer to the democratic process. The non stop lying as well as his attacks on our institutions, not to mention what he has done to political discourse. It's one thing to disagree on tax or immigration policy. Those are going to change from one administration to the next. It's another to be a lying POS.
__________________
Try
Science, not superstition.
Reason, not revelation.
Education, not epiphanies
Intellect, not ignorance.
.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2019, 09:27 PM   #47
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 36,885
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
Except, you seem to be playing the false equivalence game. As if every leader is equally good or bad.
Nope. Some leaders are better than others. And no leader really knows what's best. Which is why we tend to insist on leadership by consensus. And when we do vest unusual authority in a single individual, we generally don't give them the authority to summarily execute anyone who gets in the way of what's best.

But if you did know what's best...
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2019, 09:44 PM   #48
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 21,801
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Nope. Some leaders are better than others. And no leader really knows what's best. Which is why we tend to insist on leadership by consensus. And when we do vest unusual authority in a single individual, we generally don't give them the authority to summarily execute anyone who gets in the way of what's best.

But if you did know what's best...
You certainly wouldn't need to execute people.

Also, a plurality of votes doesn't constitute a consensus.

I don't expect POTUS to be perfect or even close. But I do expect him to be civil and have the wisdom to understand his own limitations.
__________________
Try
Science, not superstition.
Reason, not revelation.
Education, not epiphanies
Intellect, not ignorance.
.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2019, 10:23 PM   #49
xjx388
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 7,048
Let’s pretend that there was someone who lived their whole lives being educated by a variety of the best economists, social scientists, climate scientists, etc. They live their life in politics and have used their lifelong education to improve the lives of people in municipalities, counties and states. That person then runs for President. This person obviously has the right answers because their vision has measurably increased the happiness and well being of everyone they have governed over.

Do we then vest absolute authority in this person and allow them to summarily execute anyone who opposes them?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2019, 11:32 PM   #50
Roger Ramjets
Illuminator
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 4,102
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
Let’s pretend that there was someone who lived their whole lives being educated by a variety of the best economists, social scientists, climate scientists, etc. They live their life in politics and have used their lifelong education to improve the lives of people in municipalities, counties and states. That person then runs for President. This person obviously has the right answers because their vision has measurably increased the happiness and well being of everyone they have governed over.

Do we then vest absolute authority in this person and allow them to summarily execute anyone who opposes them?
No - we dismiss him as 'low energy', swiftboat him, try to impeach him over conspiracy theories, call him a hypocrite for using a private jet, subject her to dozens of investigations that have no merit, accuse her of running a child sex ring and human trafficking etc. etc. etc. - and if none of that works then we shoot her.

Quote:
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You sent a message from your iPhone? That's social media, a toxic dump that nobody should look to for information about anything!
__________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good.
Roger Ramjets is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2019, 11:57 PM   #51
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 43,793
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
Say what? Who's trying to change what he said?

On pretty much every yardstick Trump is taking a hammer to the democratic process. The non stop lying as well as his attacks on our institutions, not to mention what he has done to political discourse. It's one thing to disagree on tax or immigration policy. Those are going to change from one administration to the next. It's another to be a lying POS.
Yes, yes, orange man bad.

But this isn’t a thread about Trump.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th March 2019, 06:59 AM   #52
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 21,801
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Yes, yes, orange man bad.

But this isn’t a thread about Trump.
But it was alluded to that other Presidents were equally bad so what does it matter? Left, Right, Center, good, bad, blah, blah, blah. Nothing makes a difference, but clearly it does.
__________________
Try
Science, not superstition.
Reason, not revelation.
Education, not epiphanies
Intellect, not ignorance.
.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th March 2019, 07:02 AM   #53
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 21,801
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
Let’s pretend that there was someone who lived their whole lives being educated by a variety of the best economists, social scientists, climate scientists, etc. They live their life in politics and have used their lifelong education to improve the lives of people in municipalities, counties and states. That person then runs for President. This person obviously has the right answers because their vision has measurably increased the happiness and well being of everyone they have governed over.

Do we then vest absolute authority in this person and allow them to summarily execute anyone who opposes them?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Nope.
__________________
Try
Science, not superstition.
Reason, not revelation.
Education, not epiphanies
Intellect, not ignorance.
.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th March 2019, 07:04 AM   #54
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 36,885
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
You certainly wouldn't need to execute people.



Also, a plurality of votes doesn't constitute a consensus.



I don't expect POTUS to be perfect or even close. But I do expect him to be civil and have the wisdom to understand his own limitations.
We're not even talking about POTUS. The US system is pretty far removed from choosing a leader who knows what's best.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th March 2019, 07:05 AM   #55
varwoche
Penultimate Amazing
 
varwoche's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Puget Sound
Posts: 12,928
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
I ABSOLUTELY got that message.
Clearly. It may as well have been written by a Trump normalization bot. As if Trumps behavior, in many startling aspects, is vaguely within the bounds of normalcy. Guffaw.
__________________
To survive election season on a skeptics forum, one must understand Hymie-the-Robot.
varwoche is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th March 2019, 07:14 AM   #56
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 43,793
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
But it was alluded to that other Presidents were equally bad so what does it matter?
No, it did not. It alluded to all presidents falling short of one we could entrust with the power to execute those who got in the way of progress.

Quote:
Left, Right, Center, good, bad, blah, blah, blah. Nothing makes a difference, but clearly it does.
You are reading into it something which simply isn't there. Don't do that.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th March 2019, 07:17 AM   #57
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 43,793
Originally Posted by varwoche View Post
Clearly. It may as well have been written by a Trump normalization bot. As if Trumps behavior, in many startling aspects, is vaguely within the bounds of normalcy. Guffaw.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th March 2019, 07:26 AM   #58
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 36,885
Originally Posted by varwoche View Post
Clearly. It may as well have been written by a Trump normalization bot. As if Trumps behavior, in many startling aspects, is vaguely within the bounds of normalcy. Guffaw.
You need to figure out how to set Trump aside from time to time. This has nothing to do with Trump, except in your own head. It's pure a look at hypothetical solutions to the problem of doing what's best for the most people. Go back to the beginning of the exchange, and come at it without dragging Trump along, and see what you think.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th March 2019, 07:30 AM   #59
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 43,793
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
You need to figure out how to set Trump aside from time to time. This has nothing to do with Trump, except in your own head. It's pure a look at hypothetical solutions to the problem of doing what's best for the most people. Go back to the beginning of the exchange, and come at it without dragging Trump along, and see what you think.
You're probably asking for too much.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th March 2019, 07:31 AM   #60
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 21,801
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
No, it did not. It alluded to all presidents falling short of one we could entrust with the power to execute those who got in the way of progress.



You are reading into it something which simply isn't there. Don't do that.
I disagree. It seemed very much a case of false equivalences.

I never took the executing people seriously. If one actually thinks that, they haven't thought it through. It's Machiavellian and is the basic principle behind the Prince. People have had and still do have that kind of authority. It NEVER ends well. Whether we are talking Kim Jong Un, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Stalin, Hitler or various Popes.

One could reasonably argue that Einstein was the greatest physicist that ever lived. Should he have had the power to execute Niels Bohr over quantum theory just because Einstein thought it to be wrong?
__________________
Try
Science, not superstition.
Reason, not revelation.
Education, not epiphanies
Intellect, not ignorance.
.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th March 2019, 08:10 AM   #61
ahhell
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 2,470
Originally Posted by Lambchops View Post
Exactly. They are euro-style social democrats at best.

It just amazes me that so many USAians seem to believe that the definition of socialism is pretty much "anything slightly to the left of me that I disagree with".

It's like words don't actually mean anything anymore. Post modern conservatism.
Socialist = left of me
Fascist = Right of me

Why is this so hard to understand?

Still, Doesn't Sanders call himself a Dem Socialist and isn't AOC a member of some group calling itself Dem Socialist.


Anyrate, to the OP. It all depends on you're(the commentator's) perspective and who they want to smear vs prop up. Folks that think of themselves as centrists will call their favored candidate a centrist and the the candidates they don't like, socialists or whatever they think is insulting. Same for the more left commentators. We've long moved past ideology in the US(and from what I can tell elsewhere) its all about in group/out group now.
ahhell is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th March 2019, 08:21 AM   #62
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 43,793
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
I disagree. It seemed very much a case of false equivalences.
theprestige has specifically denied this. One might expect that to suffice, but I'm not sure what would suffice for you.

Quote:
I never took the executing people seriously. If one actually thinks that, they haven't thought it through.
Do you think theprestige was actually advocating doing that?
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th March 2019, 08:38 AM   #63
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 21,801
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
theprestige has specifically denied this. One might expect that to suffice, but I'm not sure what would suffice for you.

Do you think theprestige was actually advocating doing that?
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
The best way to get the best results for the most people is to put someone in charge who knows what's best, and empower them to summarily execute anyone who gets in the way of that goal.

Think of it as applied Darwinism. Two generations of this program, and humanity would consist almost entirely of people committed to the cause.
There seemed to be a conundrum with your arguments. You seem to expect one not see the obvious subtext on one of Prestige's posts and yet ignore the actual text of another.

How do I 'actually' know what Prestige means? I'm also not sure when posters are trying to be clever saying things with a wink.
__________________
Try
Science, not superstition.
Reason, not revelation.
Education, not epiphanies
Intellect, not ignorance.
.

Last edited by acbytesla; 4th March 2019 at 08:40 AM.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th March 2019, 08:47 AM   #64
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 43,793
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
There seemed to be a conundrum with your arguments. You seem to expect one not see the obvious subtext on one of Prestige's posts and yet ignore the actual text of another.
What actual text do you think I'm ignoring?

And not everything is always about Trump. You seem to be trying to read his post as if it's a defense of Trump, but none of your claims about this alleged subtext make any sense if it's not. And given that he explicitly stated that it's not about Trump, I think you need to go back and reread it again with fresh eyes.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th March 2019, 09:01 AM   #65
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 36,885
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
I disagree. It seemed very much a case of false equivalences.
Except I wasn't actually equating anything. I was stating an ideal* solution to the problem of how to do what's best for the most possible people. The equivalency to Trump happened entirely in your own head. I'm not always thinking about Trump. Neither are you. This is an opportunity for us to do that together, if you're willing.

Quote:
I never took the executing people seriously. If one actually thinks that, they haven't thought it through. It's Machiavellian and is the basic principle behind the Prince. People have had and still do have that kind of authority. It NEVER ends well. Whether we are talking Kim Jong Un, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Stalin, Hitler or various Popes.
Okay, but why not think it through? Your historical examples are well taken. As I already said, there's a reason we don't usually give our executives the authority of summary execution.**

But this is essentially a problem of not having much certainty about what's best for the most people. If you did actually know what's best? If you actually had in your hands the Blueprint for a Better Tomorrow for All Humanity? If you had a workforce and a brain trust ready and willing to help you build it? What would you do then?

Quote:
One could reasonably argue that Einstein was the greatest physicist that ever lived. Should he have had the power to execute Niels Bohr over quantum theory just because Einstein thought it to be wrong?
First, I don't think one could reasonably argue that Einstein was the greatest physicist that ever lived. He was good at certain things, and he made some breakthroughs as much by virtue of being at the right point in history as by his own talent.

But being a good physicist is not the same as knowing how to do what's best for the most people. There's no reason to think that just because Einstein was good at Relativity, he would also know whether executing Bohr would be better or worse for the rest of humanity.

I wouldn't give a physicist that kind of power. But it does raise the question: What type of man would we want to look for, to lead this kind of revolution? Does it even have to be a man? Would a woman do a better job, perhaps? Or perhaps to do it right, we need a leader from some range of the LGBTQI spectrum we have yet to fully explore.

Anyway, back to the question of who is a progressive. The real issue is, if we're going to do what's best for the most people, we have to figure out what's best, first. And after that, we have to figure out what we're going to do with the people who disagree with us.

Warfare is an extreme example, but therefore also a clarifying example. In 1941, what's best for the most people? We're pretty confident the answer to that question is "shut down the German war machine." And what to do with the people who disagreed with that? Well, at one end of the scale, if they kept their opinions to themselves and didn't interfere with our efforts to do what's best, we didn't do anything with them. But at the other end of the scale, the ones who got out there and tried to stop us? Summary execution. And rightly so.

Now look at global climate change through the same lens. Do you know what policies will do the most good for the most people? That's your direction of progress. The question is what kind of system do we want, to make progress? How do we deal with those who oppose that progress? How much additional human suffering are we willing to tolerate, because we aren't ready to shut down the opposition?

---
*Not in the sense of "happiest" or "nicest".
**Though there are some limited exceptions - even good ones.

Last edited by theprestige; 4th March 2019 at 09:10 AM.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th March 2019, 09:03 AM   #66
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 21,801
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
What actual text do you think I'm ignoring?
I never said YOU were ignoring ANYTHING. You asked "Do you think prestige was actually advocating doing that?" This was when I took Prestige's post literally which said "The best way to get the best results for the most people is to put someone in charge who knows what's best, and empower them to summarily execute anyone who gets in the way of that goal." I said you were asking us to ignore what Prestige actually posted.

Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post

And not everything is always about Trump. You seem to be trying to read his post as if it's a defense of Trump, but none of your claims about this alleged subtext make any sense if it's not. And given that he explicitly stated that it's not about Trump, I think you need to go back and reread it again with fresh eyes.
No it is not always about Trump. But you seem to think eveyone is stupid. That we are unable to see a subtext that people deny when it is pointed out. Deniability is often the reason people use subtext. Is it not?
__________________
Try
Science, not superstition.
Reason, not revelation.
Education, not epiphanies
Intellect, not ignorance.
.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th March 2019, 09:05 AM   #67
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 43,793
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I'm not always thinking about Trump. Neither are you.
Are you sure about that?
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th March 2019, 09:06 AM   #68
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 36,885
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
theprestige has specifically denied this. One might expect that to suffice, but I'm not sure what would suffice for you.



Do you think theprestige was actually advocating doing that?
If I actually believed I had a formula for doing the best for the most, I think I'd have to seriously consider it.

Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
There seemed to be a conundrum with your arguments. You seem to expect one not see the obvious subtext on one of Prestige's posts and yet ignore the actual text of another.

How do I 'actually' know what Prestige means? I'm also not sure when posters are trying to be clever saying things with a wink.
I'm not very clever, and I cold suck at the kind of trolling we've recently seen on display in another thread.

I'm not trying to troll you here. My provisional conclusion at this point in time, after giving the problem many years of thought, is that perfecting humanity is an unsolvable conundrum, and that executing dissenters is generally counter-productive.

But I'm curious to see if anyone else has thought about this problem, and what their conclusions are - if any.

And again: Whatever Trump subtext you're reading into my posts, it's entirely in your own head. We've talked about Trump before. I'm sure we'll talk about him again. But I'm not talking about Trump here, and I really hope you'll figure that out and drop it.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th March 2019, 09:07 AM   #69
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 43,793
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
I never said YOU were ignoring ANYTHING. You asked "Do you think prestige was actually advocating doing that?" This was when I took Prestige's post literally which said "The best way to get the best results for the most people is to put someone in charge who knows what's best, and empower them to summarily execute anyone who gets in the way of that goal." I said you were asking us to ignore what Prestige actually posted.
See, now you're ignoring the actual obvious subtext, which is that there is no one who actually knows what's best.

Quote:
No it is not always about Trump. But you seem to think eveyone is stupid.
Most people prove me right.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th March 2019, 09:08 AM   #70
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 36,885
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Are you sure about that? : o
I'm not sure about anything. But I do have occasional fits of charity, which prompt me to appeal to the better angels of acbytesla's nature.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th March 2019, 10:07 AM   #71
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 21,801
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Except I wasn't actually equating anything. I was stating an ideal* solution to the problem of how to do what's best for the most possible people. The equivalency to Trump happened entirely in your own head. I'm not always thinking about Trump. Neither are you. This is an opportunity for us to do that together, if you're willing.


Okay, but why not think it through. Your historical examples are well taken. As I already said, there's a reason we don't usually give our executives the authority of summary execution.**

But this is essentially a problem of not having much certainty about what's best for the most people. If you did actually know what's best? If you actually had in your hands the Blueprint for a Better Tomorrow for All Humanity? If you had a workforce and a brain trust ready and willing to help you build it? What would you do then?


First, I don't think one could reasonably argue that Einstein was the greatest physicist that ever lived. He was good at certain things, and he made some breakthroughs as much by virtue of being at the right point in history as by his own talent.

But being a good physicist is not the same as knowing how to do what's best for the most people. There's no reason to think that just because Einstein was good at Relativity, he would also know whether executing Bohr would be better or worse for the rest of humanity.

I wouldn't give a physicist that kind of power. But it does raise the question: What type of man would we want to look for, to lead this kind of revolution? Does it even have to be a man? Would a woman do a better job, perhaps? Or perhaps to do it right, we need a leader from some range of the LGBTQI spectrum we have yet to fully explore.

Anyway, back to the question of who is a progressive. The real issue is, if we're going to do what's best for the most people, we have to figure out what's best, first. And after that, we have to figure out what we're going to do with the people who disagree with us.

Warfare is an extreme example, but therefore also a clarifying example. In 1941, what's best for the most people? We're pretty confident the answer to that question is "shut down the German war machine." And what to do with the people who disagreed with that? Well, at one end of the scale, if they kept their opinions to themselves and didn't interfere with our efforts to do what's best, we didn't do anything with them. But at the other end of the scale, the ones who got out there and tried to stop us? Summary execution. And rightly so.

Now look at global climate change through the same lens. Do you know what policies will do the most good for the most people? That's your direction of progress. The question is what kind of system do we want, to make progress? How do we deal with those who oppose that progress? How much additional human suffering are we willing to tolerate, because we aren't ready to shut down the opposition?

---
*Not in the sense of "happiest" or "nicest".
*Though there are some limited exceptions - even good ones.
Shutting down the opposition is almost always a mistake as long as the opposition is not violent. I see that desire organically arising from both ends of the political spectrum. Although they both always sell it with a brand of populism. That it is for the good of the people.

Sure, IF you ABSOLUTELY knew what was the right thing to do all the time, fine. But aye, there's the rub.

The wise and good leader and the "end justifies the means" is the premise of Machiavelli's "Il Principe". Archbishop Beckett expressed it thusly, "Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?"

I think, (maybe mistakenly) that I'm a pretty smart guy. But I'm not that smart and I don't know anyone that is. I consider Newton to be arguably the smartest human being to ever live, but he was also a nut job about certain things.

My point is, I wouldn't trust ANYONE with that much power. Democratic principles and checks and balances are a major hindrance to efficient government. But are essential for any long lasting one. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
__________________
Try
Science, not superstition.
Reason, not revelation.
Education, not epiphanies
Intellect, not ignorance.
.

Last edited by acbytesla; 4th March 2019 at 10:11 AM.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th March 2019, 11:57 AM   #72
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,797
Conservative columnist Jennifer Rubin has been asking Democratic presidential candidates about their positions. Their answers help to illustrate the differences among liberal, progressive, centrist, socialist, etc.

Elizabeth Warren:
Quote:
In a well-functioning market, companies compete by providing better products, better service, or better prices. That kind of competition benefits customers and rewards businesses that out-innovate or out-work their competitors.

But when companies can deceive their customers about the quality or price of their products, that’s cheating — and the market stops working. Companies that are willing to deceive their customers are rewarded with more business, while honest companies struggle to keep up. That’s bad for customers and bad for the companies that just want to do the right thing.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...&noredirect=on

Eric Garcetti:
Quote:
A debate over being “pro-trade” or “anti-trade” is out of touch with today’s economy. The fact is, there are far more customers for American products outside of the U.S. than there are here at home. With open markets and a level playing field, American workers can out-compete workers anywhere in the world.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...&noredirect=on

Chris Murphy:
Quote:
1. What is the right balance of taxes, debt and spending?
The answer to this question is almost completely dependent on what government is buying with its spending, and what activity the government is taxing. In general, without the specifics, government should roughly approximate budgetary outputs with inputs, while leaving room to create debt for spending projects that will provide a return on investment in a longer term window. Most smart economists I know suggest that deficits in the range of 3 percent of gross domestic product are responsible and manageable.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...&noredirect=on

John Delaney:
Quote:
The right balance of taxes and spending would produce deficits of about 2 percent across the long term. Under my economic policies, I believe the economy can consistently grow at least 2.5 percent per year, and if we can manage long-term annual deficits to be less than the level of annual economic growth, then the debt as a percentage of our economy will go down, which is what matters. The key metric is debt as a percentage of gross domestic product, and I would like to start slowly lowering that ratio to be more in line with historical averages. To achieve this, we need to increase revenue, which I would do by: (1) implementing a form of the “Buffet rule,” which involves synchronizing capital gains tax rates with ordinary income tax rates. We do not need a lower capital gains rate; that is an outdated incentive and contributes meaningfully to the structural unfairness in the tax code as investors pay lower taxes than workers, (2) by rolling back the tax cuts on high earners from the GOP tax reform, and (3) by raising corporate tax rates — not to where they were — but to about 27 percent. On the spending side, we have to lower long-term spending growth, which should be focused on fixing health care.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...?noredirect=on

Last edited by Bob001; 4th March 2019 at 11:59 AM.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th March 2019, 12:27 PM   #73
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 36,885
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post

Conservative columnist Jennifer Rubin has been asking Democratic presidential candidates about their positions. Their answers help to illustrate the differences among liberal, progressive, centrist, socialist, etc.
One annoying feature of the forum software is that it doesn't quote stuff that's already in quote tags. This makes it difficult to respond to quoted citations, since they don't appear when you quote the post they came from. Next time, try using the INDENT tag to cite material you wish to discuss.

Elizabeth Warren:
In a well-functioning market, companies compete by providing better products, better service, or better prices. That kind of competition benefits customers and rewards businesses that out-innovate or out-work their competitors.

But when companies can deceive their customers about the quality or price of their products, that’s cheating — and the market stops working. Companies that are willing to deceive their customers are rewarded with more business, while honest companies struggle to keep up. That’s bad for customers and bad for the companies that just want to do the right thing.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...&noredirect=on
Enforcing contracts and prosecuting fraud is solid small-government conservative stuff, in my book.


Eric Garcetti:

A debate over being “pro-trade” or “anti-trade” is out of touch with today’s economy. The fact is, there are far more customers for American products outside of the U.S. than there are here at home. With open markets and a level playing field, American workers can out-compete workers anywhere in the world.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...&noredirect=on
Weasel words: "with open markets and a level playing field".

You out-compete when you have a competitive advantage. Whether is more endurance, more natural resources, more education, whatever. You succeed at competition when you find a place on the field that tilts in your favor. Sometimes, governments try to tilt the field in their own favor, or level out a tilt against them. Is Garcetti arguing for global laissez-faire, and may the best competitive advantage win? Or is he arguing for global mercantilism, and nobody sells anything to anybody without strict competitive parity between all parties?

Either way, I don't think American workers really can out-compete all other workers. American workers have some competitive advantages in some areas, due to history and geography. They have some other advantages due to artificial trade restrictions.

Garcetti needs to be clear about what his actual plans are, for "open markets and a level playing field", and what competitive advantage he intends to preserve for American workers on such a field.

Chris Murphy:
1. What is the right balance of taxes, debt and spending?
The answer to this question is almost completely dependent on what government is buying with its spending, and what activity the government is taxing. In general, without the specifics, government should roughly approximate budgetary outputs with inputs, while leaving room to create debt for spending projects that will provide a return on investment in a longer term window. Most smart economists I know suggest that deficits in the range of 3 percent of gross domestic product are responsible and manageable.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...&noredirect=on
Sounds reasonable to me. Dunno where exactly it's supposed to fall on the progressive-conservative continuum, so I'll just mark it as "moderate centrist" for now.

John Delaney:
The right balance of taxes and spending would produce deficits of about 2 percent across the long term. Under my economic policies, I believe the economy can consistently grow at least 2.5 percent per year, and if we can manage long-term annual deficits to be less than the level of annual economic growth, then the debt as a percentage of our economy will go down, which is what matters. The key metric is debt as a percentage of gross domestic product, and I would like to start slowly lowering that ratio to be more in line with historical averages. To achieve this, we need to increase revenue, which I would do by: (1) implementing a form of the “Buffet rule,” which involves synchronizing capital gains tax rates with ordinary income tax rates. We do not need a lower capital gains rate; that is an outdated incentive and contributes meaningfully to the structural unfairness in the tax code as investors pay lower taxes than workers, (2) by rolling back the tax cuts on high earners from the GOP tax reform, and (3) by raising corporate tax rates — not to where they were — but to about 27 percent. On the spending side, we have to lower long-term spending growth, which should be focused on fixing health care.
Interesting. This the most detailed of the responses, with the most specifics. I don't see anything to hate, but I'll want to think about this a bit more.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th March 2019, 12:29 PM   #74
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
 
Mycroft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 19,601
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
No. The consensus is that social media is a toxic dump and you shouldn't look to it for information about anything.
True, but people do get their information from social media so why shouldn't we talk about it?
Mycroft is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th March 2019, 12:43 PM   #75
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,797
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
One annoying feature of the forum software is that it doesn't quote stuff that's already in quote tags. This makes it difficult to respond to quoted citations, since they don't appear when you quote the post they came from. Next time, try using the INDENT tag to cite material you wish to discuss.
.....
The quotes are short excerpts from lengthy columns. I was proposing the entirety of the linked columns as subjects for discussion.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th March 2019, 12:48 PM   #76
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 36,885
Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
True, but people do get their information from social media so why shouldn't we talk about it?
Context matters.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th March 2019, 12:53 PM   #77
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 43,793
Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
True, but people do get their information from social media so why shouldn't we talk about it?
Travis specifically should get off social media completely, it's not good for him.

And what's the point in talking about what people say on social media? It's one thing to discuss a news story that you heard about through there, but the opinions of randos on social media about the news holds next to zero information.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th March 2019, 12:53 PM   #78
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 36,885
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
The quotes are short excerpts from lengthy columns. I was proposing the entirety of the linked columns as subjects for discussion.
And yet only one of us is actually discussing any of it so far. If you want to discuss more of the linked material, be my guest, please.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th March 2019, 09:22 PM   #79
Lambchops
Graduate Poster
 
Lambchops's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Norvegr
Posts: 1,371
Originally Posted by Travis View Post
Okay, so is the consensus here that no one running is actually a socialist of any stripe?


Then who is and who isn't a progressive? Who is a neoliberal?
If we're talking presidential candidates, Sanders is possibly an actual socialist at heart, but he is running on a progressive social democrat platform.

All the others are neolibs.
__________________
Your grandchildren will be brown, trans, and Islamo-Communist.
Lambchops is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th March 2019, 01:36 AM   #80
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 12,668
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
The best way to get the best results for the most people is to put someone in charge who knows what's best, and empower them to summarily execute anyone who gets in the way of that goal.
Others seem to have missed the obvious problems here. The first is that I don't know of any good way to find out who knows what's best, if anyone does.
The second is that people have multiple motivations. Even if your dictator does know what's best, and is motivated to implement it, he/she will also have other selfish motivations that will come into conflict with that implementation.

Of course I think that was your point. I admit sometimes you are too subtle for me though, so maybe I'm wrong.

So how does this relate to the issue of socialism? I think you're suggesting that even if socialist policies could be more effective for running our society in theory, giving the power necessary to implement them to government leaves us open to problems of corruption and government continuing to expand it's power beyond the point necessary for that implementation.

I do think that's a reasonable concern, but unlike just giving someone dictatorial powers, there are ways to at least mitigate those concerns.

Quote:
Think of it as applied Darwinism. Two generations of this program, and humanity would consist almost entirely of people committed to the cause.
Yep. But that doesn't necessarily apply to socialism.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:45 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.