Generational Theory Forum: The Fourth Turning Forum: A message board discussing generations and the Strauss Howe generational theory

Full Version: Well, I'm back
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
More than a bit ago I had a bunch of disasters hit at the same time.  A benign brain tumor, slow growing, manifested enough pressure to upset balance, hearing, sight and nerves sensing and controlling the left side of my face.  My computer died.  A tropical depression in combination with my loss of balance caused a fall which resulted in significant enough brusing to leave me in the hospital.  They also removed the tumor.  The combination of disasters resulted in an absence from these boards of months.

I'm currently living in my sister's house and using her computer.  The abilities lost are slowly recovering, at least some of them.  I fear I'll be contributing again, though I chose to wait on Apple's iMac Pro to attempt to recover the computer.  Hence, a new account.

Before I was hit by the above, I argued that the government had a role in disaster recovery, and that insurance companies should be forbidden from issuing policies that favored select groups that had favorable odds when what was insured was a right listed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.  I did so in theory, in abstract.  I characterized both the governments and insurance companies as ideally protecting the unlucky.  All shoud be protected against UDHR rights.  All should be protected.

Today, I'm just happy to live in Massachusetts, to have had good coverage, to have worked with a system that worked.

Yes, there are people who try to bilk the system.  They should be pursued and suppressed.  Yes, the young, rich and lucky could form cliques that would make it easy and cheap to protect themselves.  I prefer so see everyone contribute and everyone protected.  No, Obamacare was not perfect. It is just that Trumpcare does not cover some which I care about.

No, benefits should not be targeted.  Because Texas is red but California is Blue, hurricaines should not be treated radically different than wildfires.  No, beause one has legal ancestors and another US citizen doesn't, that doesn't justify special action.  No, the US population should not divide itself between haves and have nots with those who have thinking themselves superior Americans.

Anyway...  I'm back.
(01-04-2018, 11:10 PM)Bob Butler 1954 Wrote: [ -> ]More than a bit ago I had a bunch of disasters hit at the same time.  A benign brain tumor, slow growing, manifested enough pressure to upset balance, hearing, sight and nerves sensing and controlling the left side of my face.  My computer died.  A tropical depression in combination with my loss of balance caused a fall which resulted in significant enough brusing to leave me in the hospital.  They also removed the tumor.  The combination of disasters resulted in an absence from these boards of months.

I'm currently living in my sister's house and using her computer.  The abilities lost are slowly recovering, at least some of them.  I fear I'll be contributing again, though I chose to wait on Apple's iMac Pro to attempt to recover the computer.  Hence, a new account.

Before I was hit by the above, I argued that the government had a role in disaster recovery, and that insurance companies should be forbidden from issuing policies that favored select groups that had favorable odds when what was insured was a right listed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.  I did so in theory, in abstract.  I characterized both the governments and insurance companies as ideally protecting the unlucky.  All shoud be protected against UDHR rights.  All should be protected.

Today, I'm just happy to live in Massachusetts, to have had good coverage, to have worked with a system that worked.

Yes, there are people who try to bilk the system.  They should be pursued and suppressed.  Yes, the young, rich and lucky could form cliques that would make it easy and cheap to protect themselves.  I prefer so see everyone contribute and everyone protected.  No, Obamacare was not perfect. It is just that Trumpcare does not cover some which I care about.

No, benefits should not be targeted.  Because Texas is red but California is Blue, hurricaines should not be treated radically different than wildfires.  No, beause one has legal ancestors and another US citizen doesn't, that doesn't justify special action.  No, the US population should not divide itself between haves and have nots with those who have thinking themselves superior Americans.

Anyway...  I'm back.

Glad to hear you are doing OK, and hope you continue to get better!
(01-05-2018, 10:40 PM)gabrielle Wrote: [ -> ]Glad to hear you are doing OK, and hope you continue to get better!

Would you believe they considered one of the symptoms they found was that I was stubborn? Wink
(01-05-2018, 11:40 PM)Bob Butler 1954 Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-05-2018, 10:40 PM)gabrielle Wrote: [ -> ]Glad to hear you are doing OK, and hope you continue to get better!

Would you believe they considered one of the symptoms they found was that I was stubborn?    Wink

I would.   Dodgy

I'm not buying the "John McCain Excuse" though.  I think you're stubborn because you're stubborn.  I should know all about stubborn people--both of my parents who are almost exactly your age (April and November 1954 respectively) are quite stubborn and neither have brain tumors though both have Type II diabetes.  (Yay African Genetics--I know what I can look forward to should I have the misfortune to live to the 2T.)

As or haves and have nots they have existed in every society.  Liberty necessitates inequality BECAUSE equality is the polar opposite of liberty.  As the 20th century has proved, any move toward "equality" at the expense of liberty leads to an equality of the lowest common denominator.  Socialism makes everyone equally poor, equally hungry, equally naked and equally ignorant.
(01-06-2018, 10:08 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: [ -> ]As or haves and have nots they have existed in every society.  Liberty necessitates inequality BECAUSE equality is the polar opposite of liberty.  As the 20th century has proved, any move toward "equality" at the expense of liberty leads to an equality of the lowest common denominator.  Socialism makes everyone equally poor, equally hungry, equally naked and equally ignorant.

Socialists and modern liberals tend to be envy driven lifeforms who would prefer that everyone is equally miserable.  That is paradise to someone like Eric the Obtuse.
(01-07-2018, 01:22 AM)Galen Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-06-2018, 10:08 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: [ -> ]As or haves and have nots they have existed in every society.  Liberty necessitates inequality BECAUSE equality is the polar opposite of liberty.  As the 20th century has proved, any move toward "equality" at the expense of liberty leads to an equality of the lowest common denominator.  Socialism makes everyone equally poor, equally hungry, equally naked and equally ignorant.

Socialists and modern liberals tend to be envy driven lifeforms who would prefer that everyone is equally miserable.  That is paradise to someone like Eric the Obtuse.

Indeed.  If nobody has nothing then there is no reason to be envious of anyone.  Ergo....paradise.
Well, there you go strawmannirg again.  I see myself, like most progressives, as uninterested in a pure economic equality which would give equal funds or resources to all.  I am interested in a floor, in guaranteeing a minimum, as does the UN's UDHR.  

If your world views cannot survive correctly attributing the opposition's motive, how do you intend to contribute?
(01-08-2018, 08:19 AM)Bob Butler 1954 Wrote: [ -> ]Well, there you go strawmannirg again.  I see myself, like most progressives, as uninterested in a pure economic equality which would give equal funds or resources to all.  I am interested in a floor, in guaranteeing a minimum, as does the UN's UDHR.  

If your world views cannot survive correctly attributing the opposition's motive, how do you intend to contribute?

Bob,

Here is the problem.  It doesn't matter what you see yourself as doing--what you are doing is what matters.  ("Realz trump feelz, brah."  as the kids say.)  For example my mother still thinks the Drug War is a good idea as it somehow magically prevents people sticking needles in their arms or smoking various substances in their spare time.  (Trust me when I say it does not.) 

Any attempt at setting a floor never stops at setting a floor, just like all attempts at the regulation of private intitutions initiated by the state  never stay set at "X product cannot be sold to minors, and cannot be used while driving a motor vehicle on public thoroughfares".  The nature of the so-called progressives is to never be satisfied.  Where Marxists want to over turn the old order for an order of their making in one fell swoop (IE a revolution), so-called progressives prefer to slowly erode the state of freedom (the natural state) until such point as a state of slavery is reached.

That is the nature of the so-called progressives.  So you'll forgive me if I have no interest in their ideas considering the main difference between them and the Marxists is the speed at which they desire to make everyone equally poor, equally ignorant, equally naked, and equally hungry.

In an other thread, Anatomy of the State by Murray Rothbard was brought up.  I would suggest that you read it.  Or you could do the audio book like I did.  But then again, being a self-proclaimed stubborn person, and a Boomer (which makes proclaiming yourself to be stubborn redundant--simply by being a Boomer) I wouldn't be surprised if you somehow never get around to it.  After all my mother has problems with economics books being my son's toilet literature.  (apparently there is something wrong with a kid reading philosophy and economics instead of hustler--I told him to ignore her, I went through the same shit but in my case it was Marx Sleepy )
(01-09-2018, 01:42 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-08-2018, 08:19 AM)Bob Butler 1954 Wrote: [ -> ]Well, there you go strawmannirg again.  I see myself, like most progressives, as uninterested in a pure economic equality which would give equal funds or resources to all.  I am interested in a floor, in guaranteeing a minimum, as does the UN's UDHR.  

If your world views cannot survive correctly attributing the opposition's motive, how do you intend to contribute?

Any attempt at setting a floor never stops at setting a floor, just like all attempts at the regulation of private intitutions initiated by the state  never stay set at "X product cannot be sold to minors, and cannot be used while driving a motor vehicle on public thoroughfares".  The nature of the so-called progressives is to never be satisfied.  Where Marxists want to over turn the old order for an order of their making in one fell swoop (IE a revolution), so-called progressives prefer to slowly erode the state of freedom (the natural state) until such point as a state of slavery is reached.

That is the nature of the so-called progressives.  So you'll forgive me if I have no interest in their ideas considering the main difference between them and the Marxists is the speed at which they desire to make everyone equally poor, equally ignorant, equally naked, and equally hungry.

It is this quirk of the modern liberal or progressive that makes them such nasty little totalitarians no matter how they see themselves.  Progressives, Marxists and Socialists all have the same fatal flaw: the solution to all problems is central planning and control by the state.  They only differ in how quickly they progress to the same end.  No matter how much destruction they cause they never seem to learn from it which is where these groups get their reputation for stupidity.
(01-09-2018, 01:42 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: [ -> ]That is the nature of the so-called progressives.  So you'll forgive me if I have no interest in their ideas considering the main difference between them and the Marxists is the speed at which they desire to make everyone equally poor, equally ignorant, equally naked, and equally hungry.

Believe me, I have no desire to see people equally naked.  There are some, and age and gender have something to do with it, who I want to see naked more than others.  Are there Marxists who want it faster?  Do conservatives lack such a drive?  Did the desire for naked people change when you switched from Marxist to whatever Trump is?

In this and other areas you are wrong about me, wrong about Marxists, wrong about progressives, and in general wrong.
Bob, your lack of self-awareness is noted. Indeed, I think a lack of self-awareness is a prerequisite for being on the left while not being a Marxist. But yes I did change to demanding liberty over equality when I stopped being a Marxist and started being an American Nationalist.

As for being wrong about you--I think not. I've discussed these issues with you long enough to have a general idea of what and how you think. Like many Boomers you think yourself complex when in reality your views are incredibly simplistic. As to being wrong about Marxists in particular, I know I'm not wrong. I spent decades as a Marxist eventually obtaining leadership positions in Communist Parties, and being recognized as a respected ideologist. I've probably forgotten more about Marxism-Leninism than you've ever learned. I'm also not wrong about the so-called progressives either. The Marxists use that group as USEFUL IDIOTS.
(01-07-2018, 01:22 AM)Galen Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-06-2018, 10:08 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: [ -> ]As or haves and have nots they have existed in every society.  Liberty necessitates inequality BECAUSE equality is the polar opposite of liberty.  As the 20th century has proved, any move toward "equality" at the expense of liberty leads to an equality of the lowest common denominator.  Socialism makes everyone equally poor, equally hungry, equally naked and equally ignorant.

Socialists and modern liberals tend to be envy driven lifeforms who would prefer that everyone is equally miserable.  That is paradise to someone like Eric the Obtuse.

Total liberty is only liberty for those powerful or avaricious enough to exercise it.  Everyone else get the short stick.  Since there are far more people in the second category, the idea of a society based on absolute liberty is a fantasy.  It will only exist until the repressed decide to end it.  It's not like it hasn't happened many times in the past.
(01-09-2018, 01:42 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-08-2018, 08:19 AM)Bob Butler 1954 Wrote: [ -> ]Well, there you go strawmannirg again.  I see myself, like most progressives, as uninterested in a pure economic equality which would give equal funds or resources to all.  I am interested in a floor, in guaranteeing a minimum, as does the UN's UDHR.  

If your world views cannot survive correctly attributing the opposition's motive, how do you intend to contribute?

Bob,

Here is the problem.  It doesn't matter what you see yourself as doing--what you are doing is what matters.  ("Realz trump feelz, brah."  as the kids say.)  For example my mother still thinks the Drug War is a good idea as it somehow magically prevents people sticking needles in their arms or smoking various substances in their spare time.  (Trust me when I say it does not.) 

Any attempt at setting a floor never stops at setting a floor, just like all attempts at the regulation of private intitutions initiated by the state  never stay set at "X product cannot be sold to minors, and cannot be used while driving a motor vehicle on public thoroughfares".  The nature of the so-called progressives is to never be satisfied.  Where Marxists want to over turn the old order for an order of their making in one fell swoop (IE a revolution), so-called progressives prefer to slowly erode the state of freedom (the natural state) until such point as a state of slavery is reached.

That is the nature of the so-called progressives.  So you'll forgive me if I have no interest in their ideas considering the main difference between them and the Marxists is the speed at which they desire to make everyone equally poor, equally ignorant, equally naked, and equally hungry.

In an other thread, Anatomy of the State by Murray Rothbard was brought up.  I would suggest that you read it.  Or you could do the audio book like I did.  But then again, being a self-proclaimed stubborn person, and a Boomer (which makes proclaiming yourself to be stubborn redundant--simply by being a Boomer) I wouldn't be surprised if you somehow never get around to it.  After all my mother has problems with economics books being my son's toilet literature.  (apparently there is something wrong with a kid reading philosophy and economics instead of hustler--I told him to ignore her, I went through the same shit but in my case it was Marx Sleepy )

Yeah, blah-blah-blah.  If the social democracies in Europe didn't exist, you might have an argument.  But they do.  Right now, the countries with the highest level of entrepreneurialism are Sweden and Denmark, with Norway and Finland not far behind.  Why?  Because the cost of failure is not penury.  The safety net allows for failure, and another attempt later, but it still provides the opportunity for success and ample rewards for same.
(01-09-2018, 09:30 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: [ -> ]Bob, your lack of self-awareness is noted.  Indeed, I think a lack of self-awareness is a prerequisite for being on the left while not being a Marxist.  But yes I did change to demanding liberty over equality when I stopped being a Marxist and started being an American Nationalist.

As for being wrong about you--I think not.  I've discussed these issues with you long enough to have a general idea of what and how you think.  Like many Boomers you think yourself complex when in reality your views are incredibly simplistic.  As to being wrong about Marxists in particular, I know I'm not wrong.  I spent decades as a Marxist eventually obtaining leadership positions in Communist Parties, and being recognized as a respected ideologist.  I've probably forgotten more about Marxism-Leninism than you've ever learned.  I'm also not wrong about the so-called progressives either.  The Marxists use that group as USEFUL IDIOTS.

Remember, it was you who was the Marxist.  In fact, it was only you, if I remember the positions of the many posters to this board and its antecedent.  Marxism was dead when the modern economy emerged in the 1920s.  It's even less relevant today.  A bigger question: what replace capitalism when AI replaces human work?  I know I won't live to see it, but it's coming.  Under that model, libertarianism will devolve to the rule of the mob or absolute autocracy.  I'll bet on the latter.

As a social system, neither is acceptable, so some advanced planning is in order.
(01-07-2018, 01:22 AM)Galen Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-06-2018, 10:08 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: [ -> ]As or haves and have nots they have existed in every society.  Liberty necessitates inequality BECAUSE equality is the polar opposite of liberty.  As the 20th century has proved, any move toward "equality" at the expense of liberty leads to an equality of the lowest common denominator.  Socialism makes everyone equally poor, equally hungry, equally naked and equally ignorant.

Socialists and modern liberals tend to be envy driven lifeforms who would prefer that everyone is equally miserable.  That is paradise to someone like Eric the Obtuse.

Oh no, no, not at all. I just want YOU to be miserable! That would be paradise to me.
(01-09-2018, 11:16 AM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-09-2018, 01:42 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-08-2018, 08:19 AM)Bob Butler 1954 Wrote: [ -> ]Well, there you go strawmannirg again.  I see myself, like most progressives, as uninterested in a pure economic equality which would give equal funds or resources to all.  I am interested in a floor, in guaranteeing a minimum, as does the UN's UDHR.  

If your world views cannot survive correctly attributing the opposition's motive, how do you intend to contribute?

Bob,

Here is the problem.  It doesn't matter what you see yourself as doing--what you are doing is what matters.  ("Realz trump feelz, brah."  as the kids say.)  For example my mother still thinks the Drug War is a good idea as it somehow magically prevents people sticking needles in their arms or smoking various substances in their spare time.  (Trust me when I say it does not.) 

Any attempt at setting a floor never stops at setting a floor, just like all attempts at the regulation of private intitutions initiated by the state  never stay set at "X product cannot be sold to minors, and cannot be used while driving a motor vehicle on public thoroughfares".  The nature of the so-called progressives is to never be satisfied.  Where Marxists want to over turn the old order for an order of their making in one fell swoop (IE a revolution), so-called progressives prefer to slowly erode the state of freedom (the natural state) until such point as a state of slavery is reached.

That is the nature of the so-called progressives.  So you'll forgive me if I have no interest in their ideas considering the main difference between them and the Marxists is the speed at which they desire to make everyone equally poor, equally ignorant, equally naked, and equally hungry.

In an other thread, Anatomy of the State by Murray Rothbard was brought up.  I would suggest that you read it.  Or you could do the audio book like I did.  But then again, being a self-proclaimed stubborn person, and a Boomer (which makes proclaiming yourself to be stubborn redundant--simply by being a Boomer) I wouldn't be surprised if you somehow never get around to it.  After all my mother has problems with economics books being my son's toilet literature.  (apparently there is something wrong with a kid reading philosophy and economics instead of hustler--I told him to ignore her, I went through the same shit but in my case it was Marx Sleepy )

<snip boring stuff about Social Democracies>

 
Stefan Molyneux addressed this issue far better than I ever could.



(01-09-2018, 11:25 AM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-09-2018, 09:30 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: [ -> ]Bob, your lack of self-awareness is noted.  Indeed, I think a lack of self-awareness is a prerequisite for being on the left while not being a Marxist.  But yes I did change to demanding liberty over equality when I stopped being a Marxist and started being an American Nationalist.

As for being wrong about you--I think not.  I've discussed these issues with you long enough to have a general idea of what and how you think.  Like many Boomers you think yourself complex when in reality your views are incredibly simplistic.  As to being wrong about Marxists in particular, I know I'm not wrong.  I spent decades as a Marxist eventually obtaining leadership positions in Communist Parties, and being recognized as a respected ideologist.  I've probably forgotten more about Marxism-Leninism than you've ever learned.  I'm also not wrong about the so-called progressives either.  The Marxists use that group as USEFUL IDIOTS.

Remember, it was you who was the Marxist.  In fact, it was only you, if I remember the positions of the many posters to this board and its antecedent.

And your point is what exactly, Mr. Horn?  You do realize that intelligent people typically change their positions when their current ones are no longer suitable, right?  I mean what would you call someone who does the same thing over and over and expects different results?  I can only think of two things to call such a person and neither are flattering.

 
Quote:Marxism was dead when the modern economy emerged in the 1920s.
 

History would disagree with you.  Marxism reached its peak sometime in the 1940s.  Marxism-Leninism in particular is an outgrowth of the matieral conditions of rapidly industrializing states--a la the USSR, and PRC.

Quote:It's even less relevant today.

I agree, but only because except in especially backward sates most countries have at least some light industry or the income to buy goods cheaply from the World's Sweatshops (China and India respectively).  By and large the growing industries are involved with information technology and the outgrowths of those technologies.  In short Marxism has become less relevant because the material conditions changed.  Interestingly this is the same reason why I walked away from Marxism after having been a Marxist-Leninist for a quarter century.

Quote:  A bigger question: what replace capitalism when AI replaces human work?  I know I won't live to see it, but it's coming.  Under that model, libertarianism will devolve to the rule of the mob or absolute autocracy.  I'll bet on the latter.

What odds are you giving because I'm willing to take that bet.  I by no means believe that industrial capitalism is a permanent fixture in human society but the idea that automation and AI will completely replace human labor entirely is absurd.  Automation has been happening since the start of the industrial revolution and so far capitalism not only out competed Marxist Socialism, but as the video in my previous post demonstrates it even out competes so-called democratic socialism.

Furthermore more people in the 20th century have died as a result of governmental action than from anything else.  So given the choice between a huge all-powerful state and society being run by a biker gang, I'll take the biker gang.  At least the drugs will be good.

So how many bitcoin are we wagering...I take gold, silver and platinum also.  You can keep your paper though.  I only take bets with items of intrinsic value.

Quote:As a social system, neither is acceptable, so some advanced planning is in order.

The USSR had advanced planning.  People stood in line for hours for potatoes.  While I think a lack of computing power did play a part (as I've referenced Toward a New Socialism by Paul Cockshot numerous times on the old forum and even a few times here) that is not the whole story.  Command economies have great difficulties with calculating price and correctly allocating resources and labor.  Simply put cats cannot swim the Atlantic Ocean.

https://mises.org/library/impossibility-...ntic-ocean
(01-09-2018, 09:30 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: [ -> ]Bob, your lack of self-awareness is noted.  Indeed, I think a lack of self-awareness is a prerequisite for being on the left while not being a Marxist.  But yes I did change to demanding liberty over equality when I stopped being a Marxist and started being an American Nationalist.

As for being wrong about you--I think not.  I've discussed these issues with you long enough to have a general idea of what and how you think.  Like many Boomers you think yourself complex when in reality your views are incredibly simplistic.  As to being wrong about Marxists in particular, I know I'm not wrong.  I spent decades as a Marxist eventually obtaining leadership positions in Communist Parties, and being recognized as a respected ideologist.  I've probably forgotten more about Marxism-Leninism than you've ever learned.  I'm also not wrong about the so-called progressives either.  The Marxists use that group as USEFUL IDIOTS.

No.  Your game is to repeat stuff which is just plain wrong.  Your ideas of how progressives think leads you to repeat errors which are obvious to those you are attempting to describe.  We aren't thinking the way you repeatedly describe.  You simply do not understand us and propagandize what you do not understand.  

That is why Marxists are nigh on extinct.  Who has had the last laugh?  Trump is just pushing the see saw.  The harder he pushes, the greater the failure on the rebound.  The question is how much he discredits the Republicans and other owners of the means of production in the process.

You'll see...
Aw Poor Bobby is still delusional I see. Then again I'm not really all that surprised. But you're right on one thing...so-called progressives aren't thinking in the way I describe. Because it requires thought to understand what they are doing, which is exactly as I describe.

But keep going back to that see-saw hobby horse of yours. I doubt you will ever really understand that the paradigmn has shifted and did so about two years ago--almost three years ago now.
(01-09-2018, 07:59 PM)Eric the Obtuse Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-07-2018, 01:22 AM)Galen Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-06-2018, 10:08 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: [ -> ]As or haves and have nots they have existed in every society.  Liberty necessitates inequality BECAUSE equality is the polar opposite of liberty.  As the 20th century has proved, any move toward "equality" at the expense of liberty leads to an equality of the lowest common denominator.  Socialism makes everyone equally poor, equally hungry, equally naked and equally ignorant.

Socialists and modern liberals tend to be envy driven lifeforms who would prefer that everyone is equally miserable.  That is paradise to someone like Eric the Obtuse.

Oh no, no, not at all. I just want YOU to be miserable! That would be paradise to me.

This is not a healthy obsession Obtuse One.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7