09-30-2017, 03:36 AM
Too many stripes...
I had a much better relationship with Mr. White Liberal Teaching Man. Still, nether Thoreau nor Eric are particularly important writers to me now. As I said, I reject one of Thoreau's basic assumptions. The key is to understand how the mind gets turned off if the idea expressed don't mesh with your worldview. Understanding one's own mind is far more important than understanding Eric's. You are stuck in "I'm right, he contradicts, he must be wrong" mode. I'm looking for how two essentially different ideas can be held and respected deeply at the same time. There is a big difference.
It is rather obvious that such a deep split in values and ideal happens regularly.
We will profess very different reasons for the firings. There is a conflict between establishment and close to the base people in the White House. Many firings are to get rid of the close to the base people, to give the establishment clearer access. Bannon might speak to that divide... fighting for the base from the outside. There is a parallel wave if the firings about Trump being the only one allowed to do scandals. Price stands out there. If you really look at the firings, you will find that pattern quickly. Looking for levers? That's a new one. I often think you've created an idealized version of Trump.
Really? Lower taxes, a stronger military, less domestic spending... The way to steal the Republican base is by promising the unraveling memes. You should be aware of what Trump promised.
Then you must have misspelled 'mispelled' deliberately. Quite a touch.
As for the economics, that I understand well enough. It is the voodoo school I object to when people claim the voodoo works. There are many schools of economics that avoid voodoo. Trying to use them doesn't result in collapse. I will leave it to others to say why in more detail, but it has been said often enough.
For the rest, you'd have to move beyond 'I am right, he contradicts, so he mist be wrong.' That's OK. Almost no one does.
Hmm. Maybe I should encourage you to believe that absolute opposites can be reconciled.
I structure through four ages of civilization, hunter gatherer, agricultural, industrial and perhaps post scarcity, the last sometimes called information. There are things to be learned from studying the hunter gatherer pattern. I'm not going to unlearn them. The books on the subject won't be unpublished.
I won't ague that a hunter gatherer tribe such as amazon or pygmies are very different from a modern well adapted industrial state. I'll just warn you that if you wait for mankind to revert to his 'natural' state of anarchy, you will have a long wait. There is a peer bond, family bonds, a leader, usually a shaman, a set of rules, territory, etc... The difference between the hunter gather period and later is that the leader is usually familiar with the entire tribe, thus the peer bond is much more involved. There is a basic structure built in, and ignoring that structure is ill done.
Yes, there was a romantic 19th century idea that hunter gatherer people lived in anarchy which was somehow superior or even utopian. Karl Marx had a notion that the state would wither away given a chance. Thoreau's thinking was a little akin. I have an opposing theory that the elite will seek power given a chance.
If you define 'anarchy' carefully, you might say some lived in a state of anarchy, but humans will still be a political animal.
(09-30-2017, 01:25 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: Yeah well it isn't hard to disregard the transcendentalists. Seriously if you read them, it reads like the new age shit Eric posts about but in 19th century speak. It is totally uninteresting or enlightening. I did have to read some of them for English Class though, but I often got poor grades in Literature anyway since I often came up with things that were the opposite of what Mrs. White-Liberal-Teaching-Lady wanted me to.
I had a much better relationship with Mr. White Liberal Teaching Man. Still, nether Thoreau nor Eric are particularly important writers to me now. As I said, I reject one of Thoreau's basic assumptions. The key is to understand how the mind gets turned off if the idea expressed don't mesh with your worldview. Understanding one's own mind is far more important than understanding Eric's. You are stuck in "I'm right, he contradicts, he must be wrong" mode. I'm looking for how two essentially different ideas can be held and respected deeply at the same time. There is a big difference.
It is rather obvious that such a deep split in values and ideal happens regularly.
(09-30-2017, 01:25 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: I disagree. Being an elected official does not a politician make. If you noticed most of the people he's hired have had a 6-7 month tenure in office and then he fires them. He hires swamp creatures because they know where the levers are and can show him where they are. Once he knows where they are and what they do, he fires the swamp thing and replaces them with someone more reliable.
We will profess very different reasons for the firings. There is a conflict between establishment and close to the base people in the White House. Many firings are to get rid of the close to the base people, to give the establishment clearer access. Bannon might speak to that divide... fighting for the base from the outside. There is a parallel wave if the firings about Trump being the only one allowed to do scandals. Price stands out there. If you really look at the firings, you will find that pattern quickly. Looking for levers? That's a new one. I often think you've created an idealized version of Trump.
(09-30-2017, 01:25 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: Don't care. Just because you're stuck in a time warp doesn't mean the rest of us are.
Really? Lower taxes, a stronger military, less domestic spending... The way to steal the Republican base is by promising the unraveling memes. You should be aware of what Trump promised.
(09-30-2017, 01:25 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: I do listen to myself. If you notice that when I post I rarely use mispelled words, and often have correct punctuation. This means that when I post I take the time to proof read and make sure that I'm saying what I want to say.
Then you must have misspelled 'mispelled' deliberately. Quite a touch.
(09-30-2017, 01:25 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: As for projection, is that you just projecting yourself onto others as you do incredibly frequently or is that you honestly see me as doing. Obviously the previous sentence is a rhetorical question--I honestly don't care one way or the other, as demonstrated in previous posts you have little to no understanding of economics and thus have little to no understanding of anything else.
As for the economics, that I understand well enough. It is the voodoo school I object to when people claim the voodoo works. There are many schools of economics that avoid voodoo. Trying to use them doesn't result in collapse. I will leave it to others to say why in more detail, but it has been said often enough.
For the rest, you'd have to move beyond 'I am right, he contradicts, so he mist be wrong.' That's OK. Almost no one does.
(09-30-2017, 01:25 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: I'm glad to see that particular hobgoblin has crept in and boggles your tiny mind.
Hmm. Maybe I should encourage you to believe that absolute opposites can be reconciled.
(09-30-2017, 01:25 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: As to anarchy, I mean anarchy in the sense that a state is absent. The state is a more recent invention of mankind arising around the time of the agricultural revolution. While humans may be political animals, isolated tribes in the amazon do not have a state just like the pygmies of the Congo also lack a state.
Since both are in as close to a state of nature as is observable, then it becomes clear that anarchy is the natural state.
I structure through four ages of civilization, hunter gatherer, agricultural, industrial and perhaps post scarcity, the last sometimes called information. There are things to be learned from studying the hunter gatherer pattern. I'm not going to unlearn them. The books on the subject won't be unpublished.
I won't ague that a hunter gatherer tribe such as amazon or pygmies are very different from a modern well adapted industrial state. I'll just warn you that if you wait for mankind to revert to his 'natural' state of anarchy, you will have a long wait. There is a peer bond, family bonds, a leader, usually a shaman, a set of rules, territory, etc... The difference between the hunter gather period and later is that the leader is usually familiar with the entire tribe, thus the peer bond is much more involved. There is a basic structure built in, and ignoring that structure is ill done.
Yes, there was a romantic 19th century idea that hunter gatherer people lived in anarchy which was somehow superior or even utopian. Karl Marx had a notion that the state would wither away given a chance. Thoreau's thinking was a little akin. I have an opposing theory that the elite will seek power given a chance.
If you define 'anarchy' carefully, you might say some lived in a state of anarchy, but humans will still be a political animal.
That this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.