Except when the recipient of the redistribution of your money is Israel?
Well, if that was all it was going for, it would be voluntary.
Basically what I’m saying is I agree with you on a philosophical level but on a political level I do not. And I’m more interested in politics than philosophy.
Yeah, you are going to be a peon for the establishment, because you are “playing the game”. If you could see yourself from our eyes…
Well you were the first to use this word, you should know in relation to whom did you use it. I am asking because it is critical wheter you used in relation to establishment Progressives or anti-establishment Progressives.
Are there anti-establishment progressives? I think of progressives as their early 20th century mantra of utilizing government authority to create efficient, technocratic government that supposedly serves the good of mankind. I would consider people like Boxer, Kennedy, and other specific democrats as being progressives who were at least right on the war but wrong on nearly everything else.
So you’re just a lobbyist. You like the government insofar as it gives you what you want. There’s one name which fits this description, and it seems quite appropriate–statist.
Unless I can get to be a part of the establishment. In which case, I might win. If not, I lose either way. It makes more sense to play the game.
I’m definitely a statist. But on a scale from 0 to 100, 0 being you guys, 100 being Stalin, I’m a 10-20.
Let’s see. A racist who thinks that the people in the United States should be serfs to support the chosen ones in Israel. I’d say a little higher than 10-20.
Well, that’s your opinion. Which you are entitled to.
Sure there are. I think of progressives as that part of the left that is too radical to be content as to call themselves liberal, but is crafty enough, particularly after 1991, not to use the term socialist.
No, establishment progressives can not be a lesser evil. To be a part of the establishment is to be posessed by power. Such figures can not be broken down as being bad on such things and good on others. Power has its own incentive structure with consequence that they are only passionate about the things they are bad on, and will never spend political capital fighting for what they are good on.
It is only meaningful to compare anti-establishment, non-power hungry figures in this manner. Because the anti-establishment types are passionate about all of their professed stances. So an anti-establishment progressive like Cynthia McKinney or Ralph Nader would be very much an improvement over Obama, as you would actually get the good with the bad.
Kennedy could not be a lesser evil in any sense. He was against the Iraq War from tactical considerations. Not because he was anti-empire, but because he was pro-empire and had predicted that the war is going to be a net less for the empire. He would have started a war some place else and used a different narrative that is all.
We often here remark that capitalists don’t like capitalism, because big corporations would rather have a State to bribe and control than have to compete in the free market. So what you’re saying makes perfect sense: as an individual, if you can play the game, you can in theory do better for yourself - assuming you have no conscience as to how the rest of the world might suffer. That’s one aspect, but another aspect is that even from a perspective of self-interest, you would be toadying to those in power, and what will that do to your own sense of self-worth and personal responsibility? You may not wish to rail against the State - few of us here do that will the full possible force - but going fully in the other direction and becoming the next Keynes is also something you may wish to avoid.
Businessmen are opportunists. They rarely seem to care where the money comes from or how they win as long as they win. They’ll give lip service to capitalism but in reality they’re neutral in the sense that they’re open to help from anything willing to help them. I mean look at Wall Street taking all those bailouts.
Also, it’s not that I don’t have a conscience. I believe Machiavelli said it best when he said (possibly paraphrasing) “the gap between how people ought to behave and how they actually behave is so great that those who do good will be ruined by all those who do bad.” If it’s not me it’ll be someone else, almost guaranteed.
I’m not talking about becoming the next Keynes. I’m saying that I’m not anti-state. You guys tend to be. I’m open to the state and using the state as long as I get what I want. But this means that I may get exactly what I don’t want. It’s a risky game, no doubt about it.
However, I think there should be serious limits on the size of the state and the range and scope of its powers. This does not mean I want to see the dissolution of the state altogether though.
I’m not against bowing in principle. I just want to be adequately compensated when and if I do bow.
Unfortunately, statism can only be measured ordinally.
Jacob:
When people here say they are against the State, I think they usually mean it would be better not just for them in their unique life situation, but for all the people they care about, and for the world in general. If I personally get a lot of high-paying work because of government intervention, it may be that I would rather the State continue to exist. But I think that’s different from the ideological position of being for or against the State.
I agree with everything else you said, except the Machiavelli quote, which seems ignorant of Adam Smith’s insights. In fact, I’d say that the truth of Machiavelli’s quote is directly proportional to the size and scope of government. The freer the markets, the more that human self-interest is directed toward cooperative rather than conflicting ends (more accurately stated here in terms of I.D.E.A.).
As in 1st degree, 2nd degree etc?
He means binary: either you are a Statist or you aren’t. But again, I think he’s talking about ideology, whereas I think you’re talking about what will benefit you most in your own life situation. Talking past each other to a degree.
So glad that you could entitle an opinion to mere chattel.
I don’t think Machiavelli was referring to economic or political systems as much as he was referring to human nature. No matter the system, there will always be people who are willing to do evil if it means they stand to gain something. That being said, I don’t necessarily think Machiavelli was 100 percent correct, but I do think humans are neutral. They’re opportunists. That’s why socialism appeals to some and rothbardian libertarianism appeals to others. It’s not a distinction between the innate morality of different humans or governmental or economic systems but a consequence of their circumstance and how it influences their personal concept of self interest.
Machiavelli had also just been exiled from Florence so his cynicism was probably a way of dealing with his exile. Adam Smith didn’t live in the time of mass media, global overpopulation and multi-national corporations. So his concept of the invisible hand and people advancing other’s interests by advancing their own has to be taken with an understanding of context. Not that he wasn’t right, just that the setting has changed dramatically since both Machiavelli and Smith. But, if I had to bet on one viewpoint being correct, I’d take Machiavelli. But mainly because The Prince was my personal introduction to political theory so I’m biased.
I think that it would probably be better if there were no governments. But there have been governments for a long time. I’m willing to bet there will continue to be governments. Therefore, I’m also going to bet that it’s in my interest to try and get what I want from the state instead of trying to make it go away.
My personal decisions represent a personal preference and a vision of the past, present and future that you may not agree with. And I appreciate that.