You getting involved in Blue politics? You are not the one to do that. The problem would arise if the Right succeeded in banning, suppressing, or even regulating the Blue side. The most ruthless people on the Right would be perfectly happy to have a permanent split of 70-30 in representation forever between themselves and everyone else, with the Blue side winning every vote that matters. That is how things are done in the People's Republic of China.
The People's Republic of China has the formality of multi-party democracy, but everyone knows who will win. The boss of the Communist party is the real power, as in any single-party Communist state of any time, and he is unelected.
Leadership of the Republican is either ruthless, cynical, or servile enough to want an political order in which the Other Side has no political relevance, and government effectively represents only about 10% of the People. Occasionally someone on the Blue side might get to ask for disaster relief or consult on an issue, and of course anyone on the Blue side is welcome to go along with the Red side out of alleged 'principle' . But under such a scenario America would be only a sham of a democracy.
Someone else more clever than you would regulate the Blue side of American politics 00 someone completely loyal to the Red side, and obviously more sophisticated than you about politics.
(10-17-2018, 12:43 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]Actually, the amount tribalism on the right is minimal compared to the tribalism that seems to exist on the left these days. You don't have to worry about people like me getting directly involved with blue politics or becoming directly associated with blue politics. The Left looks diverse but the Left doesn't seem to be as diverse to me.
?
I started using ‘tribal’ in response to Kinser. He justified tribal thinking with the claim that all humans are tribal and that there is a limit established scientifically that you can identify with only so many people. I have been saying that there is no such limit, that the size of the tribe is not limited, that it could be all humans if you want, that there is no such limit on tribe size.
But he nor I do not own the word. Saying the word has political meaning is quite right. I scanned the internet briefly to make sure we use the word comfortably near the common political usage. I found we did pretty much, and in the process bumped into Amy Chua’s book
Political Tribes: Group Instinct and the Fate of Nations. Amazon includes the following review…
Amazon Wrote:The bestselling author of Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother, Yale Law School Professor Amy Chua offers a bold new prescription for reversing our foreign policy failures and overcoming our destructive political tribalism at home
Humans are tribal. We need to belong to groups. In many parts of the world, the group identities that matter most – the ones that people will kill and die for – are ethnic, religious, sectarian, or clan-based. But because America tends to see the world in terms of nation-states engaged in great ideological battles – Capitalism vs. Communism, Democracy vs. Authoritarianism, the “Free World” vs. the “Axis of Evil” – we are often spectacularly blind to the power of tribal politics. Time and again this blindness has undermined American foreign policy.
In the Vietnam War, viewing the conflict through Cold War blinders, we never saw that most of Vietnam’s “capitalists” were members of the hated Chinese minority. Every pro-free-market move we made helped turn the Vietnamese people against us. In Iraq, we were stunningly dismissive of the hatred between that country’s Sunnis and Shias. If we want to get our foreign policy right – so as to not be perpetually caught off guard and fighting unwinnable wars – the United States has to come to grips with political tribalism abroad.
Just as Washington’s foreign policy establishment has been blind to the power of tribal politics outside the country, so too have American political elites been oblivious to the group identities that matter most to ordinary Americans – and that are tearing the United States apart. As the stunning rise of Donald Trump laid bare, identity politics have seized both the American left and right in an especially dangerous, racially inflected way. In America today, every group feels threatened: whites and blacks, Latinos and Asians, men and women, liberals and conservatives, and so on. There is a pervasive sense of collective persecution and discrimination. On the left, this has given rise to increasingly radical and exclusionary rhetoric of privilege and cultural appropriation. On the right, it has fueled a disturbing rise in xenophobia and white nationalism.
In characteristically persuasive style, Amy Chua argues that America must rediscover a national identity that transcends our political tribes. Enough false slogans of unity, which are just another form of divisiveness. It is time for a more difficult unity that acknowledges the reality of group differences and fights the deep inequities that divide us.
I can agree with most of the above review. I have doubts about the bolded part. It does not see the “increasing radical and exclusionary rhetoric” as an extension of the Enlightenment idea of equality, or mesh well with how crises during the Industrial Age each extend values and morality. Well, you have to admit crises are radical, that the “winner” appropriates the ability to moralize, to judge, that the process has been and remains dangerous.
But it does not seem like Amy Chua sees that tribal thinking grows less in time, how it changes with the shift from autocratic to democratic forms of government, that a culture improves as tribe size gets larger, more inclusive, that setting the tribe size at all humans (or all beings as a future step) is the natural extension of Enlightenment thought.
But otherwise, I would agree with at least the review. It also seems like Kinser and I have used ‘tribalism’ consistently with the common political sense of the word.
But I would disagree with any implication that both red and blue are equal in tribal thinking. A major difference between the two cultures is the red tendency to indulge in it, the blue tendency to be intolerant of it.
One thing is certain: the 'tribes' on the political left-to-center are far more diverse in ethnicity, faith, and economic circumstance than is the coalition of the Hard Right. Donald Trump is almost as tribal a leader as was Satan Hussein.
(10-17-2018, 09:45 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ] (10-17-2018, 12:43 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]Actually, the amount tribalism on the right is minimal compared to the tribalism that seems to exist on the left these days. You don't have to worry about people like me getting directly involved with blue politics or becoming directly associated with blue politics. The Left looks diverse but the Left doesn't seem to be as diverse to me.
?
I started using ‘tribal’ in response to Kinser. He justified tribal thinking with the claim that all humans are tribal and that there is a limit established scientifically that you can identify with only so many people. I have been saying that there is no such limit, that the size of the tribe is not limited, that it could be all humans if you want, that there is no such limit on tribe size.
But he nor I do not own the word. Saying the word has political meaning is quite right. I scanned the internet briefly to make sure we use the word comfortably near the command political usage. I found we did pretty much, and in the process bumped into Amy Chua’s book Political Tribes: Group Instinct and the Fate of Nations. Amazon includes the following review…
Amazon Wrote:The bestselling author of Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother, Yale Law School Professor Amy Chua offers a bold new prescription for reversing our foreign policy failures and overcoming our destructive political tribalism at home
Humans are tribal. We need to belong to groups. In many parts of the world, the group identities that matter most – the ones that people will kill and die for – are ethnic, religious, sectarian, or clan-based. But because America tends to see the world in terms of nation-states engaged in great ideological battles – Capitalism vs. Communism, Democracy vs. Authoritarianism, the “Free World” vs. the “Axis of Evil” – we are often spectacularly blind to the power of tribal politics. Time and again this blindness has undermined American foreign policy.
In the Vietnam War, viewing the conflict through Cold War blinders, we never saw that most of Vietnam’s “capitalists” were members of the hated Chinese minority. Every pro-free-market move we made helped turn the Vietnamese people against us. In Iraq, we were stunningly dismissive of the hatred between that country’s Sunnis and Shias. If we want to get our foreign policy right – so as to not be perpetually caught off guard and fighting unwinnable wars – the United States has to come to grips with political tribalism abroad.
Just as Washington’s foreign policy establishment has been blind to the power of tribal politics outside the country, so too have American political elites been oblivious to the group identities that matter most to ordinary Americans – and that are tearing the United States apart. As the stunning rise of Donald Trump laid bare, identity politics have seized both the American left and right in an especially dangerous, racially inflected way. In America today, every group feels threatened: whites and blacks, Latinos and Asians, men and women, liberals and conservatives, and so on. There is a pervasive sense of collective persecution and discrimination. On the left, this has given rise to increasingly radical and exclusionary rhetoric of privilege and cultural appropriation. On the right, it has fueled a disturbing rise in xenophobia and white nationalism.
In characteristically persuasive style, Amy Chua argues that America must rediscover a national identity that transcends our political tribes. Enough false slogans of unity, which are just another form of divisiveness. It is time for a more difficult unity that acknowledges the reality of group differences and fights the deep inequities that divide us.
I can agree with most of the above review. I have doubts about the bolded part. It does not see the “increasing radical and exclusionary rhetoric” as an extension of the Enlightenment idea of equality, or mesh well with how crises during the Industrial Age each extend values and morality. Well, you have to admit crises are radical, that the “winner” appropriates the ability to moralize, to judge, that the process has been and remains dangerous.
But it does not seem like Amy Chua sees that tribal thinking grows less in time, how it changes with the shift from autocratic to democratic forms of government, that a culture improves as tribe size gets larger, more inclusive, that setting the tribe size at all humans (or all beings as a future step) is the natural extension of Enlightenment thought.
But otherwise, I would agree with at least the review. It also seems like Kinser and I have used ‘tribalism’ consistently with the common political sense of the word.
But I would disagree with any implication that both red and blue are equal in tribal thinking. A major difference between the two cultures is the red tendency to indulge in it, the blue tendency to be intolerant of it.
Americans may be separating into red and blue tribes, and there is some identity and tribal politics on the left, as certain groups put their own group and their own particular interest as first priority. And in another way, exaggerated emphasis on political correctness, making sure we treat all groups with utmost respect, can be felt as aiming against those who don't care as much about identity issues.
What counts though, is policy. That may be first the American blindness about freedom vs. oppression, and free market uber alles. But politics is useless if it does not address these and other real issues. Americans can be blind to the existence of tribes. But tribalism on the right, and its tribal beliefs and ideologies of self-reliance and religious prejudice, and sometimes identity obsession on the left, is what blinds us to real issues. Ideology is held as a matter of tribal identity. Being concerned with the environment, or with economic fairness, or real democracy and human rights, or gun control, is now equated with being on the blue tribe, so the red tribe is automatically against those things. But those are the things that count.
Now because of this tribalism (mostly red, but sometimes blue too) we can't even agree on fixing our roads and bridges. And a fair tax system is impossible, because the tribal view on the right is that taxes are theft, and the left counters with proposals to tax the rich. And both sides seem unconcerned now about the national debt. And no spending is too much as long as it's for our side.
(10-17-2018, 12:16 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ] (10-17-2018, 09:45 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ] (10-17-2018, 12:43 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]Actually, the amount tribalism on the right is minimal compared to the tribalism that seems to exist on the left these days. You don't have to worry about people like me getting directly involved with blue politics or becoming directly associated with blue politics. The Left looks diverse but the Left doesn't seem to be as diverse to me.
?
I started using ‘tribal’ in response to Kinser. He justified tribal thinking with the claim that all humans are tribal and that there is a limit established scientifically that you can identify with only so many people. I have been saying that there is no such limit, that the size of the tribe is not limited, that it could be all humans if you want, that there is no such limit on tribe size.
But he nor I do not own the word. Saying the word has political meaning is quite right. I scanned the internet briefly to make sure we use the word comfortably near the command political usage. I found we did pretty much, and in the process bumped into Amy Chua’s book Political Tribes: Group Instinct and the Fate of Nations. Amazon includes the following review…
Amazon Wrote:The bestselling author of Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother, Yale Law School Professor Amy Chua offers a bold new prescription for reversing our foreign policy failures and overcoming our destructive political tribalism at home
Humans are tribal. We need to belong to groups. In many parts of the world, the group identities that matter most – the ones that people will kill and die for – are ethnic, religious, sectarian, or clan-based. But because America tends to see the world in terms of nation-states engaged in great ideological battles – Capitalism vs. Communism, Democracy vs. Authoritarianism, the “Free World” vs. the “Axis of Evil” – we are often spectacularly blind to the power of tribal politics. Time and again this blindness has undermined American foreign policy.
In the Vietnam War, viewing the conflict through Cold War blinders, we never saw that most of Vietnam’s “capitalists” were members of the hated Chinese minority. Every pro-free-market move we made helped turn the Vietnamese people against us. In Iraq, we were stunningly dismissive of the hatred between that country’s Sunnis and Shias. If we want to get our foreign policy right – so as to not be perpetually caught off guard and fighting unwinnable wars – the United States has to come to grips with political tribalism abroad.
Just as Washington’s foreign policy establishment has been blind to the power of tribal politics outside the country, so too have American political elites been oblivious to the group identities that matter most to ordinary Americans – and that are tearing the United States apart. As the stunning rise of Donald Trump laid bare, identity politics have seized both the American left and right in an especially dangerous, racially inflected way. In America today, every group feels threatened: whites and blacks, Latinos and Asians, men and women, liberals and conservatives, and so on. There is a pervasive sense of collective persecution and discrimination. On the left, this has given rise to increasingly radical and exclusionary rhetoric of privilege and cultural appropriation. On the right, it has fueled a disturbing rise in xenophobia and white nationalism.
In characteristically persuasive style, Amy Chua argues that America must rediscover a national identity that transcends our political tribes. Enough false slogans of unity, which are just another form of divisiveness. It is time for a more difficult unity that acknowledges the reality of group differences and fights the deep inequities that divide us.
I can agree with most of the above review. I have doubts about the bolded part. It does not see the “increasing radical and exclusionary rhetoric” as an extension of the Enlightenment idea of equality, or mesh well with how crises during the Industrial Age each extend values and morality. Well, you have to admit crises are radical, that the “winner” appropriates the ability to moralize, to judge, that the process has been and remains dangerous.
But it does not seem like Amy Chua sees that tribal thinking grows less in time, how it changes with the shift from autocratic to democratic forms of government, that a culture improves as tribe size gets larger, more inclusive, that setting the tribe size at all humans (or all beings as a future step) is the natural extension of Enlightenment thought.
But otherwise, I would agree with at least the review. It also seems like Kinser and I have used ‘tribalism’ consistently with the common political sense of the word.
But I would disagree with any implication that both red and blue are equal in tribal thinking. A major difference between the two cultures is the red tendency to indulge in it, the blue tendency to be intolerant of it.
Americans may be separating into red and blue tribes, and there is some identity and tribal politics on the left, as certain groups put their own group and their own particular interest as first priority. And in another way, exaggerated emphasis on political correctness, making sure we treat all groups with utmost respect, can be felt as aiming against those who don't care as much about identity issues.
What counts though, is policy. That may be first the American blindness about freedom vs. oppression, and free market uber alles. But politics is useless if it does not address these and other real issues. Americans can be blind to the existence of tribes. But tribalism on the right, and its tribal beliefs and ideologies of self-reliance and religious prejudice, and sometimes identity obsession on the left, is what blinds us to real issues. Ideology is held as a matter of tribal identity. Being concerned with the environment, or with economic fairness, or real democracy and human rights, or gun control, is now equated with being on the blue tribe, so the red tribe is automatically against those things. But those are the things that count.
Now because of this tribalism (mostly red, but sometimes blue too) we can't even agree on fixing our roads and bridges. And a fair tax system is impossible, because the tribal view on the right is that taxes are theft, and the left counters with proposals to tax the rich. And both sides seem unconcerned now about the national debt. And no spending is too much as long as it's for our side.
Actually, taxes are viewed by reds as a cost/expense. I'm not sure where you got the idea of theft from but its wrong as usual. I assume that you probably don't pay much if any taxes and probably have never paid much if any taxes and probably don't know how much they cost for those who work for a living.
(10-18-2018, 02:25 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not sure where you got the idea of theft from but its wrong as usual.
Sounds vaguely libertarian, but I wouldn't say it is red.
(10-18-2018, 03:10 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ] (10-18-2018, 02:25 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not sure where you got the idea of theft from but its wrong as usual.
Sounds vaguely libertarian, but I wouldn't say it is red.
The "taxes are theft" meme moves around RW circles on heavy rotation. Occasionally it falls out of favor -- especially following a massive tax cut -- but it resurfaces soon after.
Here's an example courtesy of Fox News.
Wikipedia has a more intellectual description.
At no point do the tax-haters explain how the world works without taxation … but they still hate it.
(10-18-2018, 12:44 PM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ] (10-18-2018, 03:10 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ] (10-18-2018, 02:25 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not sure where you got the idea of theft from but its wrong as usual.
Sounds vaguely libertarian, but I wouldn't say it is red.
The "taxes are theft" meme moves around RW circles on heavy rotation. Occasionally it falls out of favor -- especially following a massive tax cut -- but it resurfaces soon after. Here's an example courtesy of Fox News. Wikipedia has a more intellectual description.
At no point do the tax-haters explain how the world works without taxation … but they still hate it.
Hate taxes? Then go to North Korea, where all enterprise is state-owned, and high profits on government-owned enterprises support the ability of the government to feed whoever it chooses to feed, supply housing to whoever it chooses to house, and supply such needs as electrical power, fuel, and healthcare to whoever the government wants to have such things. Should the government choose to dispense with you it can kill you quickly with a bullet or it can kill you slowly with starvation.
Or go back to medieval times, when there was no meaningful money. The Lord of the Manor could compel all the labor that he chose to use, which typically meant that everyone toiled to exhaustion except for the lord and his closest retainers. Compulsory labor was the norm. Government was obviously not of the people, by the people, and for the people. But life was simple -- maybe too simple.
Freedom and the complexity that makes life interesting apparently require taxes. "Comply or die" is a horrible substitute for taxes.
(10-18-2018, 03:10 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ] (10-18-2018, 02:25 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not sure where you got the idea of theft from but its wrong as usual.
Sounds vaguely libertarian, but I wouldn't say it is red.
It is precisely libertarian, and is completely red.
Some people don't realize the extent to which the libertarian economics ideology has taken over the Republican Party. It has not only completely taken it over, but it is the main platform of the Party. I have discussed this ideology here many times for 20 years; everyone should be familiar with it by now. You can always read my essay to get my view of the libertarian economics ideology, and see links to other accounts of it and its effects on us.
http://philosopherswheel.com/freemarket.html
You can look up the freedom caucus and their views to get an idea about this too.
(10-18-2018, 02:25 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ] (10-17-2018, 12:16 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ] (10-17-2018, 09:45 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ] (10-17-2018, 12:43 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]Actually, the amount tribalism on the right is minimal compared to the tribalism that seems to exist on the left these days. You don't have to worry about people like me getting directly involved with blue politics or becoming directly associated with blue politics. The Left looks diverse but the Left doesn't seem to be as diverse to me.
?
I started using ‘tribal’ in response to Kinser. He justified tribal thinking with the claim that all humans are tribal and that there is a limit established scientifically that you can identify with only so many people. I have been saying that there is no such limit, that the size of the tribe is not limited, that it could be all humans if you want, that there is no such limit on tribe size.
But he nor I do not own the word. Saying the word has political meaning is quite right. I scanned the internet briefly to make sure we use the word comfortably near the command political usage. I found we did pretty much, and in the process bumped into Amy Chua’s book Political Tribes: Group Instinct and the Fate of Nations. Amazon includes the following review…
Amazon Wrote:The bestselling author of Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother, Yale Law School Professor Amy Chua offers a bold new prescription for reversing our foreign policy failures and overcoming our destructive political tribalism at home
Humans are tribal. We need to belong to groups. In many parts of the world, the group identities that matter most – the ones that people will kill and die for – are ethnic, religious, sectarian, or clan-based. But because America tends to see the world in terms of nation-states engaged in great ideological battles – Capitalism vs. Communism, Democracy vs. Authoritarianism, the “Free World” vs. the “Axis of Evil” – we are often spectacularly blind to the power of tribal politics. Time and again this blindness has undermined American foreign policy.
In the Vietnam War, viewing the conflict through Cold War blinders, we never saw that most of Vietnam’s “capitalists” were members of the hated Chinese minority. Every pro-free-market move we made helped turn the Vietnamese people against us. In Iraq, we were stunningly dismissive of the hatred between that country’s Sunnis and Shias. If we want to get our foreign policy right – so as to not be perpetually caught off guard and fighting unwinnable wars – the United States has to come to grips with political tribalism abroad.
Just as Washington’s foreign policy establishment has been blind to the power of tribal politics outside the country, so too have American political elites been oblivious to the group identities that matter most to ordinary Americans – and that are tearing the United States apart. As the stunning rise of Donald Trump laid bare, identity politics have seized both the American left and right in an especially dangerous, racially inflected way. In America today, every group feels threatened: whites and blacks, Latinos and Asians, men and women, liberals and conservatives, and so on. There is a pervasive sense of collective persecution and discrimination. On the left, this has given rise to increasingly radical and exclusionary rhetoric of privilege and cultural appropriation. On the right, it has fueled a disturbing rise in xenophobia and white nationalism.
In characteristically persuasive style, Amy Chua argues that America must rediscover a national identity that transcends our political tribes. Enough false slogans of unity, which are just another form of divisiveness. It is time for a more difficult unity that acknowledges the reality of group differences and fights the deep inequities that divide us.
I can agree with most of the above review. I have doubts about the bolded part. It does not see the “increasing radical and exclusionary rhetoric” as an extension of the Enlightenment idea of equality, or mesh well with how crises during the Industrial Age each extend values and morality. Well, you have to admit crises are radical, that the “winner” appropriates the ability to moralize, to judge, that the process has been and remains dangerous.
But it does not seem like Amy Chua sees that tribal thinking grows less in time, how it changes with the shift from autocratic to democratic forms of government, that a culture improves as tribe size gets larger, more inclusive, that setting the tribe size at all humans (or all beings as a future step) is the natural extension of Enlightenment thought.
But otherwise, I would agree with at least the review. It also seems like Kinser and I have used ‘tribalism’ consistently with the common political sense of the word.
But I would disagree with any implication that both red and blue are equal in tribal thinking. A major difference between the two cultures is the red tendency to indulge in it, the blue tendency to be intolerant of it.
Americans may be separating into red and blue tribes, and there is some identity and tribal politics on the left, as certain groups put their own group and their own particular interest as first priority. And in another way, exaggerated emphasis on political correctness, making sure we treat all groups with utmost respect, can be felt as aiming against those who don't care as much about identity issues.
What counts though, is policy. That may be first the American blindness about freedom vs. oppression, and free market uber alles. But politics is useless if it does not address these and other real issues. Americans can be blind to the existence of tribes. But tribalism on the right, and its tribal beliefs and ideologies of self-reliance and religious prejudice, and sometimes identity obsession on the left, is what blinds us to real issues. Ideology is held as a matter of tribal identity. Being concerned with the environment, or with economic fairness, or real democracy and human rights, or gun control, is now equated with being on the blue tribe, so the red tribe is automatically against those things. But those are the things that count.
Now because of this tribalism (mostly red, but sometimes blue too) we can't even agree on fixing our roads and bridges. And a fair tax system is impossible, because the tribal view on the right is that taxes are theft, and the left counters with proposals to tax the rich. And both sides seem unconcerned now about the national debt. And no spending is too much as long as it's for our side.
Actually, taxes are viewed by reds as a cost/expense. I'm not sure where you got the idea of theft from but its wrong as usual. I assume that you probably don't pay much if any taxes and probably have never paid much if any taxes and probably don't know how much they cost for those who work for a living.
The statement that you wonder if I have paid very much if any taxes, and don't know how much they cost for those who work for a living, is a perfect illustration (as if anyone needed one) of how thoroughly you believe in the libertarian economics view of taxes. You might claim not to believe that "taxes are theft," but your general hostility to taxes, and the central position which that hatred or opposition to taxes occupies in your political ideas, shows you are aligned with attitude that taxes are theft, just as all Republicans and red voters are.
(10-18-2018, 12:44 PM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ] (10-18-2018, 03:10 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ] (10-18-2018, 02:25 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not sure where you got the idea of theft from but its wrong as usual.
Sounds vaguely libertarian, but I wouldn't say it is red.
The "taxes are theft" meme moves around RW circles on heavy rotation. Occasionally it falls out of favor -- especially following a massive tax cut -- but it resurfaces soon after. Here's an example courtesy of Fox News. Wikipedia has a more intellectual description.
At no point do the tax-haters explain how the world works without taxation … but they still hate it.
Wikipedia associates the 'taxes are theft" meme with several right wing extremist groups, but does not mention Republicans specifically or reds generally. Sounds about right.
Wiki Wrote:The idea of taxation as theft is a viewpoint found in a number of political philosophies. Under this view, government transgresses property rights by enforcing compulsory tax collection. Voluntaryists, anarcho-capitalists, as well as Objectivists and most minarchists and libertarians see taxation as a clear violation of the non-aggression principle.
Even this progressive blue leaning Whig doesn't really like to pay taxes, but I haven't come up with alternatives either.
All you have to do is google "Tea Party" specifically in 2010 and you find out that the word "Tea" stands for "Taxed Enough Already." They have taken over the Republican Party and brought it to power in 2010, after which they gerrymandered the congress to stay in power. Of course, the Tea Party itself was just Reaganomics with some steroids added. Saint Ronnie and the Republican Party are joined at the hip, and so are the Republicans to his tax cut philosophy. Bill Maher straightens things out
And Rachel Maddow defined the Republican tax meme
(10-18-2018, 02:13 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]All you have to do is google "Tea Party" specifically in 2010 and you find out that the word "Tea" stands for "Taxed Enough Already." They have taken over the Republican Party and brought it to power in 2010, after which they gerrymandered the congress to stay in power. Of course, the Tea Party itself was just Reaganomics with some steroids added. Saint Ronnie and the Republican Party are joined at the hip, and so are the Republicans to his tax cut philosophy. Bill Maher straightens things out
And Rachel Maddow defined the Republican tax meme
What do either of them TRULY know about Republican voters other than what upsets them or scares them doesn't seem to upset or matter as much if at all to us? What are either of them experts on any way? Yes, the national debt has been going up since at least the 1980's. Yes, our financial obligations have been going since at least the 1980's as well. That's old news.
(10-18-2018, 01:58 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ] (10-18-2018, 12:44 PM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ] (10-18-2018, 03:10 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ] (10-18-2018, 02:25 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not sure where you got the idea of theft from but its wrong as usual.
Sounds vaguely libertarian, but I wouldn't say it is red.
The "taxes are theft" meme moves around RW circles on heavy rotation. Occasionally it falls out of favor -- especially following a massive tax cut -- but it resurfaces soon after. Here's an example courtesy of Fox News. Wikipedia has a more intellectual description.
At no point do the tax-haters explain how the world works without taxation … but they still hate it.
Wikipedia associates the 'taxes are theft" meme with several right wing extremist groups, but does not mention Republicans specifically or reds generally. Sounds about right.
Wiki Wrote:The idea of taxation as theft is a viewpoint found in a number of political philosophies. Under this view, government transgresses property rights by enforcing compulsory tax collection. Voluntaryists, anarcho-capitalists, as well as Objectivists and most minarchists and libertarians see taxation as a clear violation of the non-aggression principle.
Even this progressive blue leaning Whig doesn't really like to pay taxes, but I haven't come up with alternatives either.
You need to figure out a way to declare yourself as a non profit person and then legally avoid taxation like Eric.
(10-18-2018, 06:17 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ] (10-18-2018, 02:13 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]All you have to do is google "Tea Party" specifically in 2010 and you find out that the word "Tea" stands for "Taxed Enough Already." They have taken over the Republican Party and brought it to power in 2010, after which they gerrymandered the congress to stay in power. Of course, the Tea Party itself was just Reaganomics with some steroids added. Saint Ronnie and the Republican Party are joined at the hip, and so are the Republicans to his tax cut philosophy. Bill Maher straightens things out
And Rachel Maddow defined the Republican tax meme
What do either of them TRULY know about Republican voters other than what upsets them or scares them doesn't seem to upset or matter as much if at all to us? What are either of them experts on any way? Yes, the national debt has been going up since at least the 1980's. Yes, our financial obligations have been going since at least the 1980's as well. That's old news.
What figures like Maddow and Maher do is say well what the experts also say. What has been happening is that taxes have been cut for the wealthy, and stayed about the same for everyone else, while spending on social programs have been cut, and spending for war has been increased. The result when Republicans have been in power is unprecedented deficits, and expanding inequality and poverty.
(10-19-2018, 01:00 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ] (10-18-2018, 06:17 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]What do either of them TRULY know about Republican voters other than what upsets them or scares them doesn't seem to upset or matter as much if at all to us? What are either of them experts on any way? Yes, the national debt has been going up since at least the 1980's. Yes, our financial obligations have been going since at least the 1980's as well. That's old news.
What figures like Maddow and Maher do is say well what the experts also say. What has been happening is that taxes have been cut for the wealthy, and stayed about the same for everyone else, while spending on social programs have been cut, and spending for war has been increased. The result when Republicans have been in power is unprecedented deficits, and expanding inequality and poverty.
But that's OK if one happens to be an elite.
(10-18-2018, 06:17 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ] (10-18-2018, 02:13 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]All you have to do is google "Tea Party" specifically in 2010 and you find out that the word "Tea" stands for "Taxed Enough Already." They have taken over the Republican Party and brought it to power in 2010, after which they gerrymandered the congress to stay in power. Of course, the Tea Party itself was just Reaganomics with some steroids added. Saint Ronnie and the Republican Party are joined at the hip, and so are the Republicans to his tax cut philosophy. Bill Maher straightens things out
And Rachel Maddow defined the Republican tax meme
What do either of them TRULY know about Republican voters other than what upsets them or scares them doesn't seem to upset or matter as much if at all to us? What are either of them experts on any way? Yes, the national debt has been going up since at least the 1980's. Yes, our financial obligations have been going since at least the 1980's as well. That's old news.
They do not need to know how Republican voters think; they need only know what Republican policies and their consequences are.
(10-19-2018, 03:19 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ] (10-18-2018, 06:17 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]What do either of them TRULY know about Republican voters other than what upsets them or scares them doesn't seem to upset or matter as much if at all to us? What are either of them experts on any way? Yes, the national debt has been going up since at least the 1980's. Yes, our financial obligations have been going since at least the 1980's as well. That's old news.
They do not need to know how Republican voters think; they need only know what Republican policies and their consequences are.
But I would go back to my comments a while ago about blue humor. In a purely rational self interested world, one would need only underline the consequences. With values, if attacked you attack back. You resist by closing your mind and voting red. I am not sure the onset of the main stream media and late night TV is productive.
This is why I would emphasize the best of red values, listen, and try to encourage others to listen in return.
Is it working? It does not seem to be. There seems to be a Right to Shoot Oneself in the Foot.
(10-19-2018, 04:35 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ] (10-19-2018, 03:19 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ] (10-18-2018, 06:17 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]What do either of them TRULY know about Republican voters other than what upsets them or scares them doesn't seem to upset or matter as much if at all to us? What are either of them experts on any way? Yes, the national debt has been going up since at least the 1980's. Yes, our financial obligations have been going since at least the 1980's as well. That's old news.
They do not need to know how Republican voters think; they need only know what Republican policies and their consequences are.
But I would go back to my comments a while ago about blue humor. In a purely rational self interested world, one would need only underline the consequences. With values, if attacked you attack back. You resist by closing your mind and voting red. I am not sure the onset of the main stream media and late night TV is productive.
This is why I would emphasize the best of red values, listen, and try to encourage others to listen in return.
Is it working? It does not seem to be. There seems to be a Right to Shoot Oneself in the Foot.
The only problem is that it's not a foolproof method. It would work for some red voters, but probably not for most of them, who are values-locked. But for those who are in a contemplative state, which means open enough to consider what someone says, then it's better.
Humor probably works just as well. It makes the message entertaining, and some independents and Republicans might be inclined to listen then. Most of them would not. But that's probably about the same as the first method.
Otherwise, it's up to the candidates to be effective, which means to stand for something, offer solutions, knock the other guy, give the impression of confidence, charisma, charm and articulation, (unfortunately) raise enough money, travel a lot, and get supporters to work hard to get your prospective voters to vote.
As Maher said, winning elections, gets us more power to win elections. It has to be at every level, not just at the top.
But I guess the second amendment protects the right to shoot oneself in the foot.
