Indeed, ET. Pragmatism is a necessity to prevent an accidental subversion of your intent.

I'm somewhat familiar with Ayn Rand's objectivism, although I don't fully subscribe to it

Thus, that's where you can find yourself in conflict with the isms.

I believe a distinction between idea and reality should be made, because survival and utopia are two different battlefields

Correct.

There's the war for heaven, and there's the war against hell, which I believe is not the same thing

Why do men abandon their principles so easily when they face hell, but hold them up when they see heaven in their reach?

Especially true in the fields of economics, when both egalitarian and utilitarian values are best served by leaving the individual to their own devices.

Well, the Milgram Experiment might have a lot to say about that, ETBrooD. But, that is a rather broad question.

The common conclusion to this experiment is bunk
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2013/10/02/the-shocking-truth-of-the-notorious-milgram-obedience-experiments/

Never trust when science becomes dogma

It is true that perceived authority does make people push others or themselves too far, or not act even when their moral code or their emotional state tells them to act. However, this experiment doesn't prove that, because it's far too unscientific.

To this day the field of psychology suffers from poor science like this. A lot of misconceptions.

It's unscientific, because Williams gave an additional 25 commands in totality, spread across all subjects, to administer additional shocks? That was the purpose of the experiment, after all, to see if these individuals would abandon their ethic at the will of an authoritative figure, and they did so, under far less strain than what the experiment has been cited for as an explanation for the behavior of individuals tried at Nuremberg, of which a family member of mine was subject. His improvising, highly limited in scope to verbal commands which was part of the script, are far less than what you can account for the pressure imposed by authority figures during any notable genocide throughout history. Certainly, the rate would've been 100%, if under the threat of death or a fear of losing loved ones. Don't you believe your logic is flawed, accounting for this? I've listened to the recordings, myself, while expanding upon the experiment with theories of my own, though they'll likely never be tested.

@ETBrooD

Now, I understand your view psychology is often biased by both economic and political gains is true, but I don't believe the popular narrative of citing this study discredits it.

The point of the experiment is claimed to be the matter of simple perceived authority, not threats, not intimidation, no danger to the subject, nothing at all

No suspicion by the subject that something's off

etc. etc.

And it must be perfectly consistent, because science only works this way

Correct; they were commanded to issue the shocks by Williams.

The point is

The experiment worked, but it's not useful for a scientific conclusion

It can't be replicated

It is true that people do respond to perceived authority with increased obedience, however the scale and the precise circumstances are still not clear

It is unclear how far exactly people are willing to go

And in which circumstances exactly

Another problem is the number of test subjects, and the political situation is also a factor

So firstly the base data is small, and secondly no psychological experiment happens in a vacuum

I for example know with absolute certainty that perceived authority alone would never get me to electrocute someone

Some leve of coercion would be neccessary

Peterson might argue it has something to do with levels of serotonin, which might be a more scientifically measurable and replicable experiment. I'd boil it down to fear as a motivator, if the subject possesses value for life and empathy. If I were to attempt poking holes into the experiment or in doing so filling gaps, as it is a social experiment, I'd like to know more about the socialization of each of the subjects, their values, institutions of which they've engaged whether religious and so forth, as well where they sit on an empathy scale.

Right

Oh, yes, there are a lot of considerations to be made, no doubt, but I still view the experiment as a petri dish by which to ask further questions.

It would also be important to have a look into the political situation locally, nationally, worldwide

Family situation

Profession of the subjects

Level of education

Indeed.

As with murderers, every case is unique

That's correct, and the experiment doesn't give you any of this information on the subjects.

One of those subjects could've tested on the autism spectrum for all we know, and perhaps they have a lack of empathy. There are many, many factors to consider far beyond the presence of an authority figure, which as I said, is fertile ground for more experimentation. Attempts to replicate the experiment is shunned among academia, however, as questions of ethics arise.

I was reading back and saw you mention that you had adopted Objectivist philosophy with your classical liberalism. It's interesting to me because that's the case with me too. I think there's a few problems with liberalism that Objectivism offers solutions to and that's why it seemed like a natural progression, at least for me.

🎊

Liberalism took a wrong turn toward that which we once despised, Jacovich, turning toward ideological manifestations that're not suitable toward the ends of preserving individual liberty, while Objectivism is consistent with Classical Liberalism in its observations, values, etc. They both have an intrinsic recognition of natural order. So, I do posses the same view as you, as it were a natural progression.

I wouldn't say liberalism has taken a wrong turn

I believe the label has been adopted by non-liberals

Well, of course it has. Classical Liberalism was radically individualist, and it has taken a turn toward radical collectivism. I would argue the wrong people have been branded as liberals, if anything.

Indeed.

Just as Samuel Adams once remarked, "How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!"

Have you also seen the occasional person equating authoritarianism with liberalism?

😂

Agreed, a strong state revolving around a strong leader is required to lead the people to greatness. @Jeremy

Oh, yes, in modern times.

Every blue moon someone comes out and does that, it's odd

A sign of the times perhaps

You'll either see an authoritarian that's proclaiming to be a liberal, or you'll see an authoritarian outside their shell accusing Classically Liberal, non-ideologues of being authoritarians.

In times of need we always go back to fascism.

Makes sense actually

Especially considering how perverted the term "liberal" is these days

Perversion on a scale I've never before seen.

It's being used to describe authoritarian ideas, as well as degeneracy and even murder

Weez, I believe you possess a misunderstanding of fascism, if you truly mean that.

The people who do this, I often wonder if they know what they're doing, or if they're ideologically inept

I’m just shitposting, don’t worry

Why would you wish to regulate out free-market processes and artificially inflate the value of goods and services, while seizing the gears of innovation? That's an odd desire, if you're in a time of need, given it's contrary to serving your needs.

We swing left to right, liberal to authoritarianism

Never far enough for fascism, sadly

>sadly

I think that because liberalism was grounded in theological ethics it was ultimately doomed from the start. Freedom can't be grounded in the arbitrary.
So on the one hand you had atheism come out of the age of reason and you also had a political system of freedom but it was founded on God. The two were bound to be at odds.

The markets are a tool to be used, I’m not ideologically attached to them, like my life depended on it; as most people here are.

I’ll bend it, use it, abuse it to suit my needs.

I mean, I understand the expedient desire to wipe out those who wish to superimpose an ideology upon you - I get that. But, that conclusion may lead to a subversion of your intent, as evinced by history. The best way is to simply dissolve the means by which they'd seek to do so and remain armed, organized with your like-minded brethren.

Ah, so you're just a pirate floating on by.

Lol.

Moral nihilism is what I'd call it.

The dark side of objectivism.

@ETBrooD, some of it is by design, others by merely becoming a subject of the designers influence or mere ignorance, going back to the subject of revisionism.

Oh yeah, like Coach Redpill

I am ideologically attached to markets because trading with other people is the best way for me to live as a human.

@Weez, you don't believe China has moved far enough, yet?

Cooperation, @jacovich stabs.

Not sure how one can be *ideologically* attached to markets

Means I see them as imperative.

Moved? In what way? @Jeremy

Correct, @jacovich stabs, so you have fundamental questions of whether it is the case that government is merely to recognize ones rights, rather than be the grantor of said rights.

Man becomes God.

The government will de facto always become the grantor of rights..

Cooperation is great but it's not a way of life. People have personal missions too and trade is offering value for value. It's easy and effective.

Britain could save the West!
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/sep/10/nativist-populism-britain-parliament-brexit-europeans

The role of government is to secure the rights of man. It cannot "grant" them, that's just incoherent.

Doing gods work for you Poles. @Tonight at 11 - DOOM

@Weez, as in you do not believe the PRC has went far enough along the lines of fascism? I find it difficult to recognize them as Communists, as this point, but I'll still declare them as such in my rants. Is the PRC the first instance of observing Fascism arise from Communism, or was it all really the same anyway, ultimately pursuing the elimination of self-organization and spontaneous order by design?

"if a democracy cannot change its mind, it ceases to be a democracy"
W T F ?
Can someone explain the logical progression behind this claim? I can't figure it out

That's because you've been manipulated by internet radicals @ETBrooD

@jacovich stabs, I also see them as an imperative, as they're required to remain free to ensure efficient allocation of scarce resources. Only a free-market can best decide, while remaining what I see as consistent with my moral values.

My God this is pertinacious mumbling of idealistic know it alls...

Free markets must be regulated to prevent monopolistic practices

And here comes Eccles

Damn straight

To make it even worse

Where did the DUCC go?

He lives on, in your ❤ @Xaverius

aw

Guardian is cancer

Agreed, they’re a socialist nation - as it says in their constitution. I think the path China is on is fine, it’s proven to work. They’re soon to be the largest economy in the world, they have control over their population, they’re expanding their influence, they’re able to deal with ‘problem’ groups, etc. I don’t believe China is fascist yet though. @Jeremy

China isn't fascist. *boggle*

What China is, is winning. All else is kinda senseless rambling tbh

@Jeremy Hmm, I think that's looking at it from too "top-down" a view. Or perhaps too broad a view, at least for the purpose of explaining one's personal affinity for markets.
It's true, a free market is best for society but that's because it's good for individuals. Because the trader relationship between even two people is fundamentally benevolent.

free market is democracy via dollar

They can be winning -and- be fascist

- The imperialistic forces of the US capitalists must eventually fall before the righteousness of the people's revolution! Materialist History *dictates* we must win!
- First Secretary, the Americans are, like, 14 times richer then us...
- Nonsense Sergey, our people are rich in socialist fervor and anti-reactionary spirit!

This is you saying China is done for.

question being how

how what?

ffs, Jeremy is producing an essay

If fascism wins, we'll soon all be Fascist

if it is so, don be a fascist-phobe

@ETBrooD, the logical progression of that argument is to defend a change antithetical toward serving whatever formal norms and values of the nation. In the context of the U.S., I could see a Starbucks Marxist making that claim, in pursuit of whatever nonsense they're espousing. Our Republic has formal, democratic processes, though radical changes were never intended to come about without many years of reflective deliberations, which is one of the reasons why I advocate for stepping back toward Federalism, at the most repealing the 17th Amendment. It'd be an intention return to a mechanic meant to prevent expedient revisions.

We're already in something approaching fascism

You guys move too fast.

I can barely keep up.

What is the 17th ammendment?

Uzalu's voice is so good

@Eccles, https://discordapp.com/channels/462008211378012160/613769782461857813/620542670317551618

Yeah still doesn't make sense to me, but thanks for tryig

I'm having to skim cos i'm working iaw, Jeremy, but what are you proposing you replace the american federal voting system with?

Replace it with swiss cheese

A Monarch crowned by God 👑 @Eccles 😉

May be better or worse, Doom

@Weez, well, if you examine their economic model, they've embraced varying behaviors consistent with Capitalist nations to survive. Fascism always wore the veneer, combining both Socialism and Capitalism in their economic models.

Nah, the argument that a monarchy is only as good as the monarch is gay cringe. It's only really true of extreme forms of despotic monarchy with little to no formal institutions.

I'm not proposing any replacements, rather reverting back to appointive Senators, @Eccles.

Appointed by whom, Jeremy?

The House.

God, ofc^^

As I said

The State house?

@ETBrooD, I'm saying the reason for the statement is for expedient progression toward some kind of change, the individual making the statement only embracing the heart of their argument when suiting their political objective. I once made that very statement.

No, the House of Representatives. They'd select peers among them to ascend.

That sounds like a terrible idea

Why do you think that's the case?

You would see the likes of California and Washington State and New York trounce over the flyover states?

You would be a failed socilaist state in a heartbeat

Of course not, as that's the case as it were now.

You'll have to read through my post.

Explain how neutering the senate improves the situation

If I were looking to solve Americas political issues, i'd be stripped power away from the federal government, not cementing it

Neutering the Senate? This doesn't neuter the Senate, rather it returns a degree of their sovereignty from the daily whims that should remain at the level of the House. It would, in fact, empowering them to carry out their constitutional duties without regard for popular sentiments, which seems to be something we should aim toward protecting ourselves from, these days.

It gives more room for Palpatine's personal decision making ofc @Eccles

That does strip power away from the Federal government, @Eccles, as it would return power to the district in appointing their Senators. Popular political sentiment sides with expansionary power.

The Senate was never meant to be subject to those sentiments.

That's arse backwards - the representatives are elected essentially proportional to the population

If you then give the power to select senators to those representatives, you're stripping away the protections built into the system for less-populace states

No, the amount of seats available to a State is proportional to that basis.

Yes, and there are precisely 2 senators per states

That's the counterbalance taht you're doing away with

This is what the French do. Their senate is elected by citizens who themselves hold elected positions. The idea is that local officials will naturally outnumber central level officials, thus the senator will need to please local governments over central gov to get reelected. France is a very centralized state thou, by design.

There would continue to be two Senate seats per State, @Eccles.

But you're allowing the represenatitives to pick those two senators, Jeremy

How is that an improvement?

How is it not?

Depending on how you implement it, at best it makes no difference

At worst you're more likely to get senators from the majority vote in the state

Rather than the possibility of a mix

Well, tbh I wouldn't make it representatives alone to vote them in (if I were to try to implement this idea). I'd go with the French option: *all* elected officials, including city councilors and mayors and whatnot.

The goal of a senate like that is not to be representative thou

It's to incentivize distribution of power

the house is to be representative

Aye

and senate to prevent that representation to centralize power too ezly

das the idea

It's by no means a foolproof system thou

but at least it's *some* kind of systematized incentive to prevent the excessive centralization of power

The US system of government is failing because they've allowed too much power to be handed to the federal government

Read what I wrote, and you will see. As it stands now, fly-over country has little sway over the legislative futures of their elected Senators, as evinced by the past century, since the 17th was ratified, and I explained in my comment on the matter why that is the case. If you examine what has been occurring among the Senate, you have Senators from fly-over country voting for regulations that directly conflict with the economic interests of their own constituency, favoring the requests of wealthy lobbies from the coastal states you've referenced that're dictating your Senatorial elections in the middle of the country.

Correct.

it wouldn't decentralize an already centralized system thou

I don't think what you're suggesting will fix it

Do the math.

It's more difficult to pump money into 435 district-level, 2-year terms, than it is 100 6-year termed seats.

Imagine the kind of money that'd be required.

money is not the issue

this is dumb

They'll do it comfortably by moving their focus to the local party structures, who will control those district level appointments

alphabet has infinite money

I'm sorry, but I broadly agree with Doom - you're moving the problem, not solving it

I think you'd be better off moving control of more "things" from federal to state level

No, local and small business interests would control the appointments made by the district, just as they had for centuries before the amendment was ratified.

I mean I know I like to meme this a lot, but you know what's a quasi-incorruptible institution of power? A hereditary Monarch. If financial corruption is your problem, here's *a* solution 4 u... Not that that would ever fly in Muttica.

What makes you think the party system will just change the plan on the ground to take control of those appointments away from the district?

This happens in the UK, btw

So it's not like it won't

They already do try and do this, but it's still the local and well-established families and small business owners who dictate the election campaigns of who makes the ticket for the House.

As it should be, by the way.

But again: this would not solve your issues even if it did work like you say. It'd just prevent them from getting worse or, more realistically, make the process of them becoming worse slower.

The senate is not the house

they don propose laws

they don change laws

As those are the interests that should be represented at the district-level, and those interests should be preserved moving forward into the Senate, but as it stands now, that's not the case.

they just need to agree to laws

They simply don't have the tools to reverse past changes

s'not their Jeb

Much of those past changes can quickly be declared as unconstitutional.

well ok

There is nothing stopping political parties taking control of those districts- the only reason they don't at the moment is they have no need to

if we have a magic wand we can do a lot

I agree

You just need an independent Judiciary, no longer politicized by a Senate that's no longer subject to populism.

but to declare something unconstitutional you need to stack the court with your ppl

that takes time

do you have a plan to do that?

or are you just saying "we just need to move this mountain 7 km that way!"?

Yes, the Senate provides for the function of approving Judicial appointees.

*approval*

not appointment

That's correct.

so it's still by no means power to do things

it's power to prevent things from occurring

*which is their job*

they are not about changing the status quo

you want to change the status quo

you won't do this by changing the senate (unless you change their prerogatives too)

Well, given they rely on popular elections, they are subject to whatever changes are wished upon that status quo, which is why we have seen their powers shift our country toward directions we don't desire. They have no buffer providing for sovereignty, to act independent of popular opinions which are nearly always flawed and subject to long-term consequences that far out-weigh their immediate gains, and as a result, no longer does the Judiciary.

Sure, but this does not discredit what I said : they wouldn't have the power to change anything *back*. Just to slow down further change.

That was the whole purpose of making them popularly elective over appointive, to subject them to those forces that'd change the status quo, and so far, that's amounted to expansionism and perpetual violations of the values this nation is founded upon.

It does to some extent; they can't propose new legislation, but they can reject it, and by nature of their character change would, over time, ensure we end up with a Judiciary stacked with apolitical and constitutionalist judges, to the extent of textualism, which would guarantee a nearly complete dismantling of the federal government, with much of the previous legislation you're referencing as unalterable becoming subject to judicial review. Also, you're forgetting much of the federal bureaucracy operates on renewal, and thus they're not permanent.

"nature of their character change would, over time, ensure we end up with a Judiciary stacked with apolitical and constitutionalist judges"

no

They can also reject appropriations.

it would just mean the less radical anti-constitutionalists would get accepted

they still don choose the candidates

"Also, you're forgetting much of the federal bureaucracy operates on renewal, and thus they're not permanent."
I'm not forgetting that, I didn't know. Not a Mutt.

That's correct.

Now, going back to the neglecting of economic development interests among many districts, including those of liberal support, this would largely cease to continue, meaning you address some of the most fundamental reasons why people have continued to chart the path of populism among both the left and right. So, I don't see it as an immediate solution, but one that tempers our ailments moving forward, @Tonight at 11 - DOOM. Over all, it's a long-term solution toward shifting the balance of power over to the many, neglected districts across the U.S., out of the hands of the few in a position of economic scale. The long-term outcome of uniformed growth across this country is a counter to current policy motives. Think about how that would change us moving forward.

And, @Eccles, I'm not sure what you mean by claiming the party system would take control of appointments away from the district. I see this as a way to change the character of the parties, as party leadership is found in the Senate, something you inherently change by way of this alteration.

I don't believe that at all

Political parties are centrally controlled and indentured to their vested interests

This isn't going to change unless you switch to PR

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49582852

I had to share this news i found with you all.

Jesus bbc

Racial lens much

If anything, they were too blind on religion...

maybe if the CIA had hired more Muslim extremists they'd know what the Muslim extremists were going to do <:BIGBRAIN:501101491428392991>

@Tonight at 11 - DOOM nah it was definitly too white

Figure this one out for me: US embassies have LGBT attaches, but no religious expert attaches even thou religion is *clearly* more prominent a political force in the world then LGBT shit.

Fucking country of Hindus ruled over by Swedes... Your elite hates religion so much, it doesn't remember it exists...

So, is that article suggesting that CIA needed more brown people in it because brown people think like terrorists?

Racial identiterianism is cancer upon the western world.

Honestly someone should make some weird serum that makes everyone white...

So finally... The world is at peace *Second degree 9000*