First Turning "purge"

[pbrower2a]

(08-18-2020, 10:38 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(08-17-2020, 07:33 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Money seems to matter little, but vocational classification matters greatly. Education matters greatly, and so do consumer tastes. Sailboat (high) or motorcycle (low) even if the two items are similar in cost. Foreign travel is high, but driving about in an RV isn't. Culture does... so believing in lucky numbers isn't impressive. Relying heavily on television for entertainment is of course very prole.

Maybe, prole-life is the new high status choice. Most people are not cut out for an intellectual life, and culture choices tends to be popular rather than high -- even among the more well-to-do.

Fussell wrote his book in a time in which social class was more a matter of the expression of cultural values that it has become in a society that has become increasingly plutocratic, vulgar, and anti-intellectual, and in which having the means of meeting basic human needs is much in doubt for many. It is far easier to control people if people focus on a basic need that gatekeepers can deny. Figure that one can look at Abraham Maslow's hierarchy of needs and  recognize the means of achieving great happiness for people who  are stuck in a rut (OK, self-actualization is at the top)... but on the dark side one can see the very bottom in the Gulag or the KZ-Lager in which even survival, let alone food and rest, are in doubt. In such a horrific place one might simply give up all hope and die, whether by doing something that gets one executed, casting oneself onto electrified wire, or giving up on eating. Or perhaps a torture chamber as some torturer points a blowtorch at one's genitals or threatens sudden death to a loved one. 

Maybe we are not that bad, but homelessness and hunger are now real threats to far more people than was so in supposedly poorer times. Not long ago I recall seeing that food insecurity was more severe in the United States than in Indonesia, the latter a much poorer country. When class means the distinction between preferring country music or classical music, then it is benign. When it is the difference between ostentatious splendor and gross deprivation, class is a gigantic issue. When class is an issue of masters with no responsibility and subjects with responsibilities but little opportunity, 'class' is anything but innocuous. When the class structure reminds one of a Marxist critique of capitalism, then something is seriously wrong with the local manifestation of capitalism that compels change in that system.

No, I am not blaming our advanced technology. I blame instead the primitive greed of people who have privilege that pharaohs and tsars could envy.




Maybe we aren't yet in torture chambers or concentration camps. But think of what happens if people able to control the terms of employment make a travesty of safety -- keeping people heavily in debt despite meager pay, reminding people on the job that someone else could take their job at any moment in the event of a slip-up or the capricious decision of a boss, when people are obliged to sacrifice the welfare of one's family because the profit and compensation of executives is deemed by law or practice far more important, when people have no recourse against a dangerous or demeaning situation except to quit with no prospect of employment, when rent is exorbitant enough that people who work hard live in harsh crowding ("Twelve in one room in A-May-REE-Caw"), when a supervisor might be in the position of getting someone to do sexual favors for better terms of (or initial or continuing) employment... we are not a rich nation. We have only the veneer of prosperity, with comparatively few people doing obscenely well. 

A wholesome economy makes it easy to achieve basic human needs easily. It does not make human happiness a near-impossibility. 

I recognize that some people have built-in problems that make love difficult (ask me about Asperger's Syndrome) -- I could get away with it for a long time with the aid of some cheats, but those cheats no longer work.

[pbrower2a]

Events of January 6 demonstrate that we have had far too much political craziness for our own good. Racist white nationalists and conspiracy theories such as those of Q-anon will be unacceptable.

[JasonBlack]

No disrespect intended, but....all of you are extremely out of touch with anything resembling what the average right winger thinks or looks like. Most right wingers are more like

below is a pretty decent cross-section of the modern right (note that not all of these are subgroups I view positively. there are a few subcultures on the right that are pretty terrible, but most of them are not like what is being described)
- working class employees who see a lot of people milking the system, destroying their neighborhoods or speaking condescendingly to them and want to see consequences
- farmers (interestingly, in Canada they tend to be more socialist)
- law-and-order bullies
- college students who think their SJW peers don't make sense and treat people terribly
- businessmen who just want to make money (ranging from sociopaths to normal people with more ambition)
- grill dads
- parents who are freaked out by how terrible the school system is and how drugs are being pushed on their children for the crime of being normal boys
- Evangelicals
- libertarians who hate corporate lobbyists just as much as anyone on the left


the unironically white supremacists haven't started really reemerging until just a few years ago, and like 2/3 of them say some variation of "I was liberal until like 3 years ago".

[Eric the Green]

(02-16-2022, 08:21 PM)JasonBlack Wrote: No disrespect intended, but....all of you are extremely out of touch with anything resembling what the average right winger thinks or looks like. Most right wingers are more like

below is a pretty decent cross-section of the modern right (note that not all of these are subgroups I view positively. there are a few subcultures on the right that are pretty terrible, but most of them are not like what is being described)
- working class employees who see a lot of people milking the system, destroying their neighborhoods or speaking condescendingly to them and want to see consequences
- farmers (interestingly, in Canada they tend to be more socialist)
- law-and-order bullies
- college students who think their SJW peers don't make sense and treat people terribly
- businessmen who just want to make money (ranging from sociopaths to normal people with more ambition)
- grill dads
- parents who are freaked out by how terrible the school system is and how drugs are being pushed on their children for the crime of being normal boys
- Evangelicals
- libertarians who hate corporate lobbyists just as much as anyone on the left


the unironically white supremacists haven't started really reemerging until just a few years ago, and like 2/3 of them say some variation of "I was liberal until like 3 years ago".

The white supremacists have mostly been so all along; just not as vocally until Obama was elected and then Donald Trump. The white vote and the black vote have been totally partisan in some southern states all along. Many of them hid their white supremacist views behind their attack on those whom they see as "a lot of people milking the system." There are few of such people, but those who think there are such people (like Classic Xer here) tend to see them as not being white. 

The "self-reliance" meme among conservatives has been prominent among farmers for many decades. They think they are self-sufficient because they don't need urban services and don't want to pay for them, which is somewhat understandable since they live on the margins and are under pressure from their declining position compared to corporate farming companies and declining weather conditions in the age of global warming. But being provincial and parochial, they cannot see the true causes of their declining fortunes, and so they blame urban people-- and again many of those people are not white, so the racist anti-welfare meme comes up again among them too.

As for businessmen, their focus on money is no excuse for their conservative ideology. They just can't see beyond their ambition, so they buy into the self-reliance meme and the tax revolt and the other traits of the neoliberal ideology, which appeals to them even though they haven't studied economics. But the ideology prevails anyway among them because it is the foundation for policies that boost the free market and idolize it, and so they believe that if they are untaxed and deregulated it will enable the "job creaters" (spelled in accordance with GW Bush's accent) to provide prosperity for everyone. It doesn't; it impoverishes most people and and creates great wealth for the few. But again, focused only on their own business and on their need to make money, businessmen can only see their bottom line and favor policies they think will allow them to make more money-- like deregulation and lower taxes. Many other pressured and low-paid suburban workers are also deceived by these tempting neoliberal tax-revolt free-market anti-welfare slogans-- increasingly so ever since the onset of the Sleepening in 1978-79.

Most college students are not fooled by the conservative attack on social justice warriors. These latter are no doubt irritating. I am irritating too probably, to conservatives who don't want to have their ideology debunked. But they fail to realize that there are more important and real concerns that need to be addressed than their personal irritation with those who get angry and throw anti-racist, feminist, pro-LGBTQ and/or politically correct slogans at them. Those who are driven by this understandable irritation, instead of by real concerns, have only themselves to blame if the economy continues to exploit them and global warming ruins everything in their world-- just because they voted for and helped elect the critics of SJWs instead of politicians interested in handling real problems and concerns to the extent that they can or are willing to in this backward, conservative country.

[David Horn]

(02-16-2022, 08:21 PM)JasonBlack Wrote: the unironically white supremacists haven't started really reemerging until just a few years ago, and like 2/3 of them say some variation of "I was liberal until like 3 years ago".

Maybe in some places this may be true, but not in the parts of smalltown and rural America I've known since birth.  The most aggressive White-Nationalists live in areas that were typically lily white until recently, with the less aggressive types living in areas that remain that way.  In short, they are either afraid of 'others' or manifestly distrust them at the very least.  More to the point, they assume life is a zero-sum game, so these interlopers are threats to their lifestyles.  

None of this has to be rational' it's all emotion. Oh, and on another point, they've been there forever. It's a tribal thing that dates back far into prehistory.

[galaxy]

It has occurred to me, in light of the current Olympics, that perhaps the 2028 Summer Olympics in Los Angeles could be a potential starting point for the next 1T if all goes well there.

This is especially inspired by the way people here in Salt Lake City (where I currently live but am not from) look back on the 2002 Olympics here with something approaching reverence. It's seen as the event that broke a decades-long stagnation and started a "golden age of Salt Lake" that is still ongoing. You still see it everywhere here - for example lots of highway overpasses in the city have the "SALT LAKE 2002" logo stamped into the concrete on the sides.

[pbrower2a]

(02-17-2022, 11:01 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(02-16-2022, 08:21 PM)JasonBlack Wrote: the unironically white supremacists haven't started really reemerging until just a few years ago, and like 2/3 of them say some variation of "I was liberal until like 3 years ago".

Maybe in some places this may be true, but not in the parts of smalltown and rural America I've known since birth.  The most aggressive White-Nationalists live in areas that were typically lily white until recently, with the less aggressive types living in areas that remain that way.  In short, they are either afraid of 'others' or manifestly distrust them at the very least.  More to the point, they assume life is a zero-sum game, so these interlopers are threats to their lifestyles.  

None of this has to be rational' it's all emotion.  Oh, and on another point, they've been there forever.  It's a tribal thing that dates back far into prehistory.

I have noticed that in my rural part of Michigan, blacks have been moving in, and I presume largely from the cesspool that is Greater Detroit --  so that their kids can get solid K-12 education and perhaps get away from some questionable influences. Some ways of life lead to at the worst a servile working-class life, and some at best lead to prison or the morgue.

[pbrower2a]

(02-16-2022, 08:21 PM)JasonBlack Wrote: No disrespect intended, but....all of you are extremely out of touch with anything resembling what the average right winger thinks or looks like. Most right wingers are more like

below is a pretty decent cross-section of the modern right (note that not all of these are subgroups I view positively. there are a few subcultures on the right that are pretty terrible, but most of them are not like what is being described)

- working class employees who see a lot of people milking the system, destroying their neighborhoods or speaking condescendingly to them and want to see consequences
- farmers (interestingly, in Canada they tend to be more socialist)
- law-and-order bullies
- college students who think their SJW peers don't make sense and treat people terribly
- businessmen who just want to make money (ranging from sociopaths to normal people with more ambition)
- grill dads
- parents who are freaked out by how terrible the school system is and how drugs are being pushed on their children for the crime of being normal boys
- Evangelicals
- libertarians who hate corporate lobbyists just as much as anyone on the left


the unironically white supremacists haven't started really reemerging until just a few years ago, and like 2/3 of them say some variation of "I was liberal until like 3 years ago".

With respect to the first -- the System really is rotten. Corporate America is all for the working man on the condition that he work as long and hard for as little as people worked for about a century ago, only to be priced out of the wonders of high technology. -- and of course denied any means of contesting low pay, bad working conditions, and brutal management. That is Nazi Germany without the racism, personality cult, militarism, corruption, and despotism. Nazi Germany was a workers' Hell in which workers were sweated on the job and cheated off the job. One got to put money down against a car that would not be produced for fifteen years except in quantities large enough to be visible. The cars were being made, but not as fast as the payments were being collected. One would be bled for dubious charities to give vague aid -- that well-connected people would skim deeply. One might get an inexpensive vacation to the Alps...only that one only saw a screen backdrop painted or printed to look like the Alps while one was in Bremen (which is on a flat plain). One paid little for such a vacation and got nothing.

We liberals are completely dumbfounded for solutions because anything other than 'more of the same' is out of the question. After all under neoliberal practice, he who owns the gold makes the rules. Anyone at all frustrated is obliged to suffer with a smile. So enjoy the short bus ride to some amphitheater in which a giant television screen shows you Old Faithful.at Yellowstone National Park. You will still be fleeced.

Someone like J D Vance (a writer of the much-acclaimed Hillbilly Elegy) gets it partially right in recognizing that powers that most people do not understand are gutting the basis of the prosperity that Americans used to enjoy while far from the giant cities. Yes, most Americans are ill-suited by cultural interests to make the most out of the coastal behemoths of cities.Places like Lima, Middletown, and Mansfield that used to be good places to live if one's culture is country music cheap chromos (Jesus at the United Nations), and hokey 'collectible' figurines or 'plates'... and of course, televised sports and detective stories that offer much "T&A"* Maybe some kid who got his first paycheck might want to visit a strip club in the Big City, but visit art galleries or a museum of natural history? No way!

If one must go to one of the few urban behemoths to get a job, one finds that one must spend half one's pay from working two jobs on rent, as America has built little modestly-priced housing in the last twenty years. Landlords profiteer off anyone with either talent or a work ethic. America was a better place when one could make a life for oneself fairly easily in Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Detroit, Cincinnati, Indianapolis, or Milwaukee..

Farmers? The giant agricultural interests are squeezing out the family farmers. Big rural landowners have typically been the most reactionary interests in almost every time and place. In a certain part of America those were the most vehement defenders of slavery. Before World War II in Europe they were the loudest supporters of fascism, including Nazism. Small farmers recognize the need for government to modernize places not so profitable for the giant corporations to serve. With a landed aristocracy thr serfs can suffer as much as will not kill them.

The Hard Right has gotten increasingly hostile to anyone who expresses hostility to anything that contradicts their world-views. The safest approach to their ideology is to say something like "Yeah. Sure. It's interesting" to someone convinced of something so stupid as young-earth creationism offered to a rationalist in a seemingly-charitable effort to save the rationalist from eternal damnation.

*t!ts and @ss..

[JasonBlack]

Quote:We liberals are completely dumbfounded for solutions because anything other than 'more of the same' is out of the question. After all under neoliberal practice, he who owns the gold makes the rules. Anyone at all frustrated is obliged to suffer with a smile. So enjoy the short bus ride to some amphitheater in which a giant television screen shows you Old Faithful.at Yellowstone National Park. You will still be fleeced.

I'll respond to the rest later, but for now....that's basically every government ever. fwiw, I agree that the current system of simply letting the winners buy up the entire government is super shortsighted (I have never had strongly supportive views on corporations, but admittedly, I don't think I was critical enough of them in my youth), but, to one extent or another, the people with the money are always going to make the rules. Whether we're talking capitalist tycoons in America, apparatchiki in the Soviet Union, coal heiresses in Australia or kings in medieval Gaul, this principle has held true for a long time.

The question is mostly whether or not we can design a system with enough checks, balances and accountability so that power isn't monopolized, and there is incentive to produce laws that are at least decent for the rest of society. Rich people not making the rules at all though? That's never going to happen.

[Eric the Green]

There will be NO 1T unless we handle the twin crises reported on today. NONE! There will be no first turning unless we handle climate change by switching to renewables on a massive scale right now, and jump start the need for this transition by cutting off all oil and gas exports from Russia to The West and all our partners--- NOW, not later! This is the crucial step that robs Russia of its funds to attack its neighbors and kill civilians.

The invasion of Ukraine by petrostate Russia is linked to the climate change disaster. Sanctions must stop ALL Russian exports of oil and gas, NOW! We must convert to renewables fast, or we lose both our economy AND our very environment and climate we depend on. Tell Biden now.

Watch this video.

[pbrower2a]

(03-01-2022, 02:21 AM)JasonBlack Wrote:

Quote:We liberals are completely dumbfounded for solutions because anything other than 'more of the same' is out of the question. After all under neoliberal practice, he who owns the gold makes the rules. Anyone at all frustrated is obliged to suffer with a smile. So enjoy the short bus ride to some amphitheater in which a giant television screen shows you Old Faithful.at Yellowstone National Park. You will still be fleeced.

I'll respond to the rest later, but for now....that's basically every government ever. fwiw, I agree that the current system of simply letting the winners buy up the entire government is super shortsighted (I have never had strongly supportive views on corporations, but admittedly, I don't think I was critical enough of them in my youth), but, to one extent or another, the people with the money are always going to make the rules. Whether we're talking capitalist tycoons in America, apparatchiki in the Soviet Union, coal heiresses in Australia or kings in medieval Gaul, this principle has held true for a long time.

The question is mostly whether or not we can design a system with enough checks, balances and accountability so that power isn't monopolized, and there is incentive to produce laws that are at least decent for the rest of society. Rich people not making the rules at all though? That's never going to happen.

Some governments are far worse than others, and there has never been any social rottenness beyond reform except that has the backing of corrupt, cruel overlords who tolerate no meaningful resistance. We may be entering a pattern in which we alternate between left-wing (but impotent) left-wing radicalism because incremental reform (the pattern of the last century  at its best) and highly effective efforts by well-connected oligarchs to tighten the screws until America is an Evil Empire that has debt bondage as its economic reality and brutal enforcement through a secret police beholden to the economic elites. That Empire could fall only in military defeat, perhaps by some nation that resists having such an order imposed upon it.

The best check is the break-up of monopolies and cartels. The US did such in Germany, Italy, and Japan after WWII, and the results have been all positive. We need to tax the Hell out of "easy money" to encourage small businesses that as a side-bonus will pay attention to their communities. instead of abandoning them for greener (meaning more lucrative pastures).

Even we Americans cannot afford to have people able to buy the political system. We may end up with lower economic growth and even technological refinement -- but what good is it if one can numb oneself with pop music from the finest new device if people starve on the street because they are no longer useful to the economic elite?.

[Eric the Green]

Allowing business to screw over the people and our planet is the neoliberal policy, and it rules the Republican Party and thus our government. Because of this the USA has declined for over 40 years and according to every measure of health and justice we are the worst developed country-- by far.

[JasonBlack]

Quote:. For example; Milo Yiannopoulos or Jordan Peterson* and Richard Spencer are in the same movement, just on different points of the spectrum.

uh.....
















......I can post more. He has plenty to say on this topic. Frankly, that claim is a bit silly.

[JasonBlack]

(02-17-2022, 05:15 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: The white supremacists have mostly been so all along; just not as vocally until Obama was elected and then Donald Trump. The white vote and the black vote have been totally partisan in some southern states all along. Many of them hid their white supremacist views behind their attack on those whom they see as "a lot of people milking the system." There are few of such people, but those who think there are such people (like Classic Xer here) tend to see them as not being white.

Some studies indicate an inverse correlation with income and people who think lots of people "milk the system". ie, the people who actually live closer to areas with lots of welfare recipients are more likely to report higher incidents of welfare fraud and milking the system than more affluent areas who are more likely to give benefit of the doubt.

Quote:The "self-reliance" meme among conservatives has been prominent among farmers for many decades. They think they are self-sufficient because they don't need urban services and don't want to pay for them, which is somewhat understandable since they live on the margins and are under pressure from their declining position compared to corporate farming companies and declining weather conditions in the age of global warming. But being provincial and parochial, they cannot see the true causes of their declining fortunes, and so they blame urban people-- and again many of those people are not white, so the racist anti-welfare meme comes up again among them too.

Speaking from experience, the worst racism I've observed was always in the cities. I've met plenty of farmers from about 10 states, and none of them were racist at all. Granted, I don't think some of them really thought much about black people on account of not many being around, just like I generally don't think much about people from Bosnia, Cambodia or Sir Lanka, but others had several black friends and clients and their interactions seemed natural, unstrained, genuinely warm (a racist can fake politeness, but if they're really racist, there will be noticeable discomfort under the surface when getting close to black people). You can criticize their worldview if you like, but just about all the farmers I've come across were much happier than the average liberal intellectual or big city businessman.

Quote:As for businessmen, their focus on money is no excuse for their conservative ideology. They just can't see beyond their ambition

This, right here, is where most of the problem is. The left has been vilifying ambition since I was born, and likely before that. They're less interested in helping the poor move up, and more interested in putting people interested in ambition and power in their place. Men will always seek out power and ambition. There is nothing inherently wrong with this. In fact, male ambition is most of what drives societal progress. The main difference between different ideological and economic models is what kind of ambition is rewarded. Is it brute force control over people (barbarism), vacuous social climbing through the royal courts (monarchy), being a sycophant to the party line (fascism), giving the most compelling spiritual oratory (theocracy) or....building systems that produce better and cheaper goods and services (capitalism)? You'll have to forgive the over-simplification of the previous systems for the sake of brevity and illustration, but ambitious capitalists have, in one way or another, helped any great society reach its zenith. Sure, it doesn't have to be "neo-liberalism", as it is now called, but if you don't like that, Australia has a different capitalistic model, so does Sweden, so does France. To some extent, even Japan does. Yes, self-reliance has its limits. I have more stories than I would like to share about running into such limits in my 20s, but that doesn't mean it's not a good thing on balance.

Societal progress hinges on a culture that builds up powerful men and rewards beneficial feats of ambition. If you try to take this away from people, no man worth his salt is going to want any part of your system.

Quote:so they buy into the self-reliance meme and the tax revolt and the other traits of the neoliberal ideology, which appeals to them even though they haven't studied economics. But the ideology prevails anyway among them because it is the foundation for policies that boost the free market and idolize it, and so they believe that if they are untaxed and deregulated it will enable the "job creaters" (spelled in accordance with GW Bush's accent) to provide prosperity for everyone. It doesn't; it impoverishes most people and and creates great wealth for the few. But again, focused only on their own business and on their need to make money, businessmen can only see their bottom line and favor policies they think will allow them to make more money-- like deregulation and lower taxes. Many other pressured and low-paid suburban workers are also deceived by these tempting neoliberal tax-revolt free-market anti-welfare slogans-- increasingly so ever since the onset of the Sleepening in 1978-79.

Generally, businessmen come in three basic categories
1) status hungry, keeping-up-with-the-Joneses socialites obsessed with appearance and impressing others. functionally, they're more like politicians than businessmen
2) high IQ sociopaths who decide business is a better means of getting ahead than crime
3) (imo, the majority) people who use money as a means to....be left the hell alone, be their own boss, not have to deal with moral busy-bodies and power-tripping bosses

my thoughts on them are
1) I'm sure I hate these as much as you do
2) I don't love them, but if it's that or them being druglords, this is the least harmful option
3) these are basically the people who end up creating most of society, in spite of doing so out of self-interest and wanting little of the credit for it.

In either event though, even these three groups combined comprise maybe...15% of conservatives? most of them are more likely to be truckers, farmers, tradesmen and other more down-to-earth personalities without huge egos.

Quote:Most college students are not fooled by the conservative attack on social justice warriors. These latter are no doubt irritating. I am irritating too probably, to conservatives who don't want to have their ideology debunked. But they fail to realize that there are more important and real concerns that need to be addressed than their personal irritation with those who get angry and throw anti-racist, feminist, pro-LGBTQ and/or politically correct slogans at them. Those who are driven by this understandable irritation, instead of by real concerns, have only themselves to blame if the economy continues to exploit them and global warming ruins everything in their world-- just because they voted for and helped elect the critics of SJWs instead of politicians interested in handling real problems and concerns to the extent that they can or are willing to in this backward, conservative country.

Most college students are idealistic fools only just beginning to wake up to problems which should have been obvious when they were 13. The minority which are actually capable of addressing these real concerns are welcome to do so, but the kinds of people who resort to screaming platitudinous slogans and histrionic antics at protests and parades should not complain when they are not treated as equals. If I accomplish anything as a "civic" millennial, it will be leading a household where emotional self-regulation is of paramount importance. A household in which expressing one's opinions is encouraged, but only so long as they can keep a level head and not resort to causing a ruckus every time they don't like something (some prime examples include Malcolm X, Charlton Heston, Jimmy Carter, Margaret Thatcher, Barack Obama...people of all races and ideologies can do this. I don't expect everyone to become conservative. Hell, you and I get heated all the time. Nothing wrong with passion if it's controlled). Boomers had some good ideas with greater self-exploration, rights for minorities, legalizing drugs, etc, but they also normalized "starting a movement" and speaking like you're at a protest as a default communication style. Respectfully...that trend needs to fucking die if we're going to return to anything resembling a state of civility or normalcy. For the last two decades or so, the college years have been the peak of "protest as everyday speech" and because of that, they need to go the extra mile for me to take them seriously.

[Eric the Green]

(03-12-2022, 12:37 AM)JasonBlack Wrote:

(02-17-2022, 05:15 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: The white supremacists have mostly been so all along; just not as vocally until Obama was elected and then Donald Trump. The white vote and the black vote have been totally partisan in some southern states all along. Many of them hid their white supremacist views behind their attack on those whom they see as "a lot of people milking the system." There are few of such people, but those who think there are such people (like Classic Xer here) tend to see them as not being white.

Some studies indicate an inverse correlation with income and people who think lots of people "milk the system". ie, the people who actually live closer to areas with lots of welfare recipients are more likely to report higher incidents of welfare fraud and milking the system than more affluent areas who are more likely to give benefit of the doubt.

Quote:The "self-reliance" meme among conservatives has been prominent among farmers for many decades. They think they are self-sufficient because they don't need urban services and don't want to pay for them, which is somewhat understandable since they live on the margins and are under pressure from their declining position compared to corporate farming companies and declining weather conditions in the age of global warming. But being provincial and parochial, they cannot see the true causes of their declining fortunes, and so they blame urban people-- and again many of those people are not white, so the racist anti-welfare meme comes up again among them too.

Speaking from experience, the worst racism I've observed was always in the cities. I've met plenty of farmers from about 10 states, and none of them were racist at all. Granted, I don't think some of them really thought much about black people on account of not many being around, just like I generally don't think much about people from Bosnia, Cambodia or Sir Lanka, but others had several black friends and clients and their interactions seemed natural, unstrained, genuinely warm (a racist can fake politeness, but if they're really racist, there will be noticeable discomfort under the surface when getting close to black people). You can criticize their worldview if you like, but just about all the farmers I've come across were much happier than the average liberal intellectual or big city businessman.

Quote:As for businessmen, their focus on money is no excuse for their conservative ideology. They just can't see beyond their ambition

This, right here, is where most of the problem is. The left has been vilifying ambition since I was born, and likely before that. They're less interested in helping the poor move up, and more interested in putting people interested in ambition and power in their place. Men will always seek out power and ambition. There is nothing inherently wrong with this. In fact, male ambition is most of what drives societal progress. The main difference between different ideological and economic models is what kind of ambition is rewarded. Is it brute force control over people (barbarism), vacuous social climbing through the royal courts (monarchy), being a sycophant to the party line (fascism), giving the most compelling spiritual oratory (theocracy) or....building systems that produce better and cheaper goods and services (capitalism)? You'll have to forgive the over-simplification of the previous systems for the sake of brevity and illustration, but ambitious capitalists have, in one way or another, helped any great society reach its zenith. Sure, it doesn't have to be "neo-liberalism", as it is now called, but if you don't like that, Australia has a different capitalistic model, so does Sweden, so does France. To some extent, even Japan does. Yes, self-reliance has its limits. I have more stories than I would like to share about running into such limits in my 20s, but that doesn't mean it's not a good thing on balance.

Societal progress hinges on a culture that builds up powerful men and rewards beneficial feats of ambition. If you try to take this away from people, no man worth his salt is going to want any part of your system.

Quote:so they buy into the self-reliance meme and the tax revolt and the other traits of the neoliberal ideology, which appeals to them even though they haven't studied economics. But the ideology prevails anyway among them because it is the foundation for policies that boost the free market and idolize it, and so they believe that if they are untaxed and deregulated it will enable the "job creaters" (spelled in accordance with GW Bush's accent) to provide prosperity for everyone. It doesn't; it impoverishes most people and and creates great wealth for the few. But again, focused only on their own business and on their need to make money, businessmen can only see their bottom line and favor policies they think will allow them to make more money-- like deregulation and lower taxes. Many other pressured and low-paid suburban workers are also deceived by these tempting neoliberal tax-revolt free-market anti-welfare slogans-- increasingly so ever since the onset of the Sleepening in 1978-79.

Generally, businessmen come in three basic categories
1) status hungry, keeping-up-with-the-Joneses socialites obsessed with appearance and impressing others. functionally, they're more like politicians than businessmen
2) high IQ sociopaths who decide business is a better means of getting ahead than crime
3) (imo, the majority) people who use money as a means to....be left the hell alone, be their own boss, not have to deal with moral busy-bodies and power-tripping bosses

my thoughts on them are
1) I'm sure I hate these as much as you do
2) I don't love them, but if it's that or them being druglords, this is the least harmful option
3) these are basically the people who end up creating most of society, in spite of doing so out of self-interest and wanting little of the credit for it.

In either event though, even these three groups combined comprise maybe...15% of conservatives? most of them are more likely to be truckers, farmers, tradesmen and other more down-to-earth personalities without huge egos.

American conservatives seem overly impressed with businessmen and down to earth types who like to be left alone and be their own boss. That has been the pattern especially among rural folks for generations now. I have seen enough documentaries and voting records and such to know they (and you) are well disposed to the self-reliance philosophy that leads them in current times to support neoliberal slogans and vote Republican. Rural folks these days vote for Trump or Bush in margins of 4 or 5 to 1 or even higher. To me that indicates something is terribly wrong out there in the sticks. I don't believe that racism is not a big part of this, because the main reason to oppose such things as welfare and other social spending is because they think non-whites are milking the system. That's interesting symbolically, and maybe ironic, since milk is white. That is more true in the South, of course, where voting patterns are ultra partisan by race. Rural folks may be parochial, but that does not stop them from eating up the various conservative prejudices and ideologies, and btw that includes a lot of conservative Christians too who vote Republican because they want to "vote thair valyus".

And again, most people are not well-suited to be their own boss. That means they have to put up with and deal with bosses. Most of them just go along. They often think and vote according to their boss's wishes too. Self-reliance is a virtue, I admit, but it's not the only virtue. And ambitions to compete and make money are not what primarily build great civilizations (of which the USA is not one). Although it can help--- if guided by intelligence, the passion for justice and altruism, compassion for suffering, a society that has higher values, and reverence for intellectuals, great arts and enlightened religion (and again, the USA is NOT guided in this way).

I actually admire the family farmer. They do good work. But these days family farms are being eaten up by corporations, and those who work them are often immigrants. By resenting welfare and supporting politicians who think money should have the power instead of the people, they will not bring back the days of prosperous family farmers. It's the wrong cure. And the politicians who support money and corporations are called conservatives, and these days they are members of the Republican Party.

As for truckers, I'd like to see them go out of business. They eat up our highways and make it unsafe to drive them, guzzle gas and pollute, charge too much, and tend to be conservatives, to the point these days of damaging the very economy they depend on by buying into antivax conspiracy theory and commiting economic terrorism in the name of freedom. We used to have trains for the long haul and trucks for local trips, but the big fossil fuel, car and tire companies saw to it that trains went away. But trains are the way to go to help avert climate change and pollution as well as allow us to travel and see the country again and bring consumer prices down. Unless of course the railroad companies are allowed to become abusive monopolies again.

Quote:

Quote:Most college students are not fooled by the conservative attack on social justice warriors. These latter are no doubt irritating. I am irritating too probably, to conservatives who don't want to have their ideology debunked. But they fail to realize that there are more important and real concerns that need to be addressed than their personal irritation with those who get angry and throw anti-racist, feminist, pro-LGBTQ and/or politically correct slogans at them. Those who are driven by this understandable irritation, instead of by real concerns, have only themselves to blame if the economy continues to exploit them and global warming ruins everything in their world-- just because they voted for and helped elect the critics of SJWs instead of politicians interested in handling real problems and concerns to the extent that they can or are willing to in this backward, conservative country.

Most college students are idealistic fools only just beginning to wake up to problems which should have been obvious when they were 13. The minority which are actually capable of addressing these real concerns are welcome to do so, but the kinds of people who resort to screaming platitudinous slogans and histrionic antics at protests and parades should not complain when they are not treated as equals. If I accomplish anything as a "civic" millennial, it will be leading a household where emotional self-regulation is of paramount importance. A household in which expressing one's opinions is encouraged, but only so long as they can keep a level head and not resort to causing a ruckus every time they don't like something (some prime examples include Malcolm X, Charlton Heston, Jimmy Carter, Margaret Thatcher, Barack Obama...people of all races and ideologies can do this. I don't expect everyone to become conservative. Hell, you and I get heated all the time. Nothing wrong with passion if it's controlled). Boomers had some good ideas with greater self-exploration, rights for minorities, legalizing drugs, etc, but they also normalized "starting a movement" and speaking like you're at a protest as a default communication style. Respectfully...that trend needs to fucking die if we're going to return to anything resembling a state of civility or normalcy. For the last two decades or so, the college years have been the peak of "protest as everyday speech" and because of that, they need to go the extra mile for me to take them seriously.

I agree that speaking like one is at a protest should not be the default mode of communication, and I plead guilty to the fault on many occasions, although I feel I am basically cool and peaceful. It was a habit I have had to deal with, left over from the sixties. So your sentence there is well put.

That does not mean young people and older people like me should not go to protests. They should. It's one way to pressure society to do the right thing and oppose injustice. It's not enough of course, by a long shot, and the protesters know it; but people who go to protests should not be disdained. And most college folks are there in college because they are bright and want to be educated, and to disparage education is to advocate for a dumb society. Which we are, if we buy into neoliberalism instead of progress. Education I know is a major factor in the national divide now. It didn't used to be so, and conservatives blame education and colleges for this, and I blame the propaganda among conservatives that education leads people to be fools and victims of propaganda. Sorry, I don't buy it. Education is good. And the USA still has the best universities in the world. And the prosperity and innovative prowess of California was built on public colleges. Thank you Democrats.

You write as if you were more like my Dad, or the more conservative members of my Dad's civic generation that I met. I cringe when you laud and compliment male ambition as if it's what makes society possible. I say we need more women in charge, as Obama said, and more feminine qualities in society. But lots of guys these days are still masculine and have ambition, and there's nothing wrong with that; but just ambition to make money is not enough. What should we be ambitious about? I would say each one of us, or any gender or race, has a unique thoughtful or creative contribution to make. It is most fulfilling to discover what that (or several thats) are, and take up the challenge to develop what they love to do and to be. Money is only a means to an end, but Americans don't seem generally speaking to know what the end is for it. Just to be left alone does not fill the bill.

There are a number of guys in the USA whose sole ambition is to make money. Episode 266 ("the Unwelcome Well") out of 271 of the Perry Mason series created a memorable portrait of such a man in 1966. He was an oil baron, and he would use people any way he could to make money. Perry was his lawyer, and Perry persuaded a crusty and reluctant old landowner to let the oil boss, Jerome Klee, drill on his land, and told him how much money he'd make if he let him do it. Soon the landowner was so enthralled at his new wealth that he borrowed against his land before the money came in. But Klee decided to cap the well because he made a better deal with some Middle East potentate and putting the landowner's oil on the market could bring the price of his oil revenue down. "He's liable to lose his land. You can't do that" Perry said to Klee. "The last time someone told me what I could not do, it was my own father. I broke his jaw for him!" Klee replied. Perry says "I notice you have all your associates intimidated." "Oh, but not you, Perry!" Klee replies. "No, I am not intimidated, I'm appalled!" (now Perry Mason, there was a real man). "What kind of a man are you?" "A money man, Mr. Mason" Klee replied. "Some people collect boats, art, books... heaven knows why I don't. I collect money, it's as simple as that." "How much money do you want?" Klee replies, "if I can get it, all there is!" Sure enough, he ends up as the murder victim. The actor who played Jerome Klee was just getting into politics himself, including serving on the city council. He ran for congress in 1968 as a Republican (surprise, surprise), but lost the primary and then died. People said he was becoming much like the character he portrayed on Perry Mason.

[pbrower2a]

(03-11-2022, 09:28 PM)JasonBlack Wrote:

Quote:. For example; Milo Yiannopoulos or Jordan Peterson* and Richard Spencer are in the same movement, just on different points of the spectrum.

uh.....
















......I can post more. He has plenty to say on this topic. Frankly, that claim is a bit silly.

It's not that silly. Hitler heavily abused medical metaphors (as in 'the Jews are a lethal bacillus/virus/carcinogen upon the Volk) and even medical research. I can imagine a Ku Kluxist saying much the same about African-Americans destroying the 'pure and precious' white race through interracial sex and deciding that the solution is some form of genocide. Such a Klansman would exploit ugly images of violent, thuggish rapists (who also deal drugs and do robberies). More insidious to racial purists might be the black bourgeoisie, which really intermarries. In their case the race-mixing typically results in the black bourgeoisie gaining non-black genes and becoming 'whiter' while almost never becoming wpractice practically hite. (Black genes 'entering' the white population typically involves people with little African ancestry).

If one can be pulled to marginally-crazy ideas while in a milieu that makes escapes from such ideas increasingly difficult because a regime becomes increasingly repressive, regimented, and brutal, then escape is difficult from the Abyss. Even Hitler could not fully implement his genocide upon taking power. First he made Jewish life unpleasant; then he took away the means of sustenance (government jobs, the professions, and media) so that they lost their viability. They could live only in cast-off places where they could be watched closely while their plight was beyond the view of people who might take pity upon them. They lost their right to vote (well, a vo4e in a Nazi election was meaningless), to travel except by foot, to keep dogs (your beloved pooch will attack attackers) or practice their religion. Meanwhile the controlled media intensified the vilification of Jews, with the vile Der Stuermer warning German parents that as Passover approaches that they must be wary of Jews who will kill gentile children for blood to add to the matzoh...never mind that kashrut practice precludes the addition of blood to any food and that murder is the highest abomination in Jewish life. Isolated and defenseless, their plight clearly denying the myth of any potent Jewish conspiracy of world domination, helpless Jews could be rounded up for slaughter in just outside Germany, where the subjected people were warned that they too would go 'up the same chimneys' as ashes if they reported the mass murders.

Peterson scares us with "You (at least potentially) are the Nazi!"... but the depraved system is at part at fault.The cure is the recognition that the vulnerable person is one's brother. I need not be a Muslim to recognize that Islam-bashing ill serves my conception of the American way of life. I need not be a homosexual to find homophobia a grave affront. After being gay-bashed I became a militant supporter of LGBT rights.

It's up to us to stand up for human rights as the demagogues unleash streams of bigotry entices official violence. We must reject angry demagogues for their anger not only when they use threatening language against others...  especially when those demagogues make appealing promises. People who see themselves as model minorities for their achievements (German Jews were the definitive Model Minority!) are far more vulnerable than the poor and oppressed who are the cheap labor that underpin aristocrati ways of life. Even the criminals have more survival skills. Achievement and virtue are not enough to keep one from being beaten, robbed, and murdered. Recall the highly-successful musical Cabaret, most likely as the 1972 film. (The story has many different treatments on stage, but one is most likely to have seen the movie). The only likeable characters are the (Jewish) Landauer family and Fritz Wendel, a suitor of Natalia Landauer, who has been hiding that he is Jewish and then  asserts such proudly (and at grave personal risk) to Nazis. We know that if any of the Jews get stranded in Germany that bad things will happen to them, which is an element of horror typical in horror movies (freakish characters, strange goings-on, and bad things happening to innocent people.

Two versions of a scary song:












We all have the Nazi example as a scare. German Jews as members of the middle and upper-middle class had only one obvious difference between themselves and German Christians: Jesus. They saw themselves sharing a culture and having an unobjectionable set of moral values. (That was not quite so; there was nothing wrong with gentile Germans of the time depicted in Cabaret that Judaism would not have solved).

When we recognize human brotherhood despite ethnicity and creed we have defeated Nazi-style and KKK-style fascism (as if there is any meaningful difference between the two). When we recognize the legitimacy of views contrary to our cultural sensibilities and economic interests, then we thwart both Bolshevism and Pinochet-style fascism.

[JasonBlack]

The vast majority of the above didn't really address the real point: Peterson dedicated a large amount of his work to understanding Nazi psychology with the express purpose of trying to prevent more Nazis from popping up in the future. He isn't "on the same spectrum" with nazis and white supremacists. Nazis really have become the ultimate McCarthy-style boogieman of the 21st century, to the point where the 2020s are basically Godwin's Law on crack.

Quote:When we recognize human brotherhood despite ethnicity and creed we have defeated Nazi-style and KKK-style fascism (as if there is any meaningful difference between the two). When we recognize the legitimacy of views contrary to our cultural sensibilities and economic interests, then we thwart both Bolshevism and Pinochet-style fascism.

respectfully, this is precisely the kind of empassionated sophistry that is going to get us nowhere (though I appreciate your willingness to also denounce the left wing equivalent of autocratic repression).

I'm not a huge fan of Meghan McCain, but she put it well with she said "“Democrats cannibalize and Republicans get in line”. Basically, Democrats love to talk about "compassion" this, "inclusivity" that, "comrade" that etc, but in practice, they are prone to viscously turn on their own in a way which you pretty much never see conservatives and libertarians doing to each other. Just look at JK Rowling, whom liberal millennials got like half their values from growing up. They turn on her on a dime, even pressuring her not to go to the recent Harry Potter reunion....which she created. We also have Whoopi Goldberg and Sharon Osbourne from The View, Joe Rogan.....I could go on. The list of Democrats who have been "canceled" is even longer than that of Republicans, because they know Democrats will care and Republicans won't.

So coming full circle...how are liberals supposed to form this so called "brotherhood of all humanity"....if they can't even get along among themselves? Seems like putting the cart before the horse.

[JasonBlack]

Quote:American conservatives seem overly impressed with businessmen and down to earth types who like to be left alone and be their own boss. That has been the pattern especially among rural folks for generations now. I have seen enough documentaries and voting records and such to know they (and you) are well disposed to the self-reliance philosophy that leads them in current times to support neoliberal slogans and vote Republican. Rural folks these days vote for Trump or Bush in margins of 4 or 5 to 1 or even higher. To me that indicates something is terribly wrong out there in the sticks. I don't believe that racism is not a big part of this, because the main reason to oppose such things as welfare and other social spending is because they think non-whites are milking the system. That's interesting symbolically, and maybe ironic, since milk is white. That is more true in the South, of course, where voting patterns are ultra partisan by race. Rural folks may be parochial, but that does not stop them from eating up the various conservative prejudices and ideologies, and btw that includes a lot of conservative Christians too who vote Republican because they want to "vote thair valyus".

you essentially just said "They vote Republican, so there must be something wrong with them". I trust it's not difficult to see how such an approach cuts off communication with the average conservative or rural farmer

Quote:Self-reliance is a virtue, I admit, but it's not the only virtue.

I'm happy to hear as much, and I agree.

Quote:You write as if you were more like my Dad, or the more conservative members of my Dad's civic generation that I met. I cringe when you laud and compliment male ambition as if it's what makes society possible

LMAO! One of the reasons I originally picked up "The Fourth Turning" is because my whole life, old women have been telling me some variation of "you're just like my father who fought in the war".  When I heard millennials were archetypally analogous to GIs, it piqued my interests.

Quote:I cringe when you laud and compliment male ambition as if it's what makes society possible. I say we need more women in charge, as Obama said, and more feminine qualities in society

.
imo, masculinity exists on a polarity between building and destruction, and feminine on a polarity between harmony and drama. With that said, there is also "good destruction" (a willingness to clear out bureaucracy, fighting injustice, etc) and "good drama" (inspiration, creativity, evocative works of art).

Tbh, what society needs now is more people like your father: strong, stable masculine energy, heroism. Someone who can lead us by projecting calm authority in an era where people have turned showing off mental illness into an artform (fwiw, I do believe mental health problems are very real, but often, the solution is very different than what people think it is). Crisis is not the time to be a feminist. It's the time to embolden heroes 

Quote:But lots of guys these days are still masculine and have ambition, and there's nothing wrong with that; but just ambition to make money is not enough. What should we be ambitious about? I would say each one of us, or any gender or race, has a unique thoughtful or creative contribution to make. It is most fulfilling to discover what that (or several thats) are, and take up the challenge to develop what they love to do and to be. Money is only a means to an end,

good so far

Quote:but Americans don't seem generally speaking to know what the end is for it.

imo, this is largely a boomer thing (the root is less about materialism than it is about excess. boomers get a lot of shit done precisely because they bring a kind of missionary zeal to whatever they're interested in, and sometimes end up losing sight of why they started). Xers are much more "I just want to get my work done so I can go home and do what I want". millennials are just less work-focused altogether.

Quote:Just to be left alone does not fill the bill.

the vast majority of people who just want to be left alone don't want to just go live in a cave in isolation. what they want is privacy, independence and the option to help people in quieter ways of their choosing. I think modern society underemphasizes the kind of quite compassion that builds communities and relationships on a smaller scale, opting instead for an over-focus on big, dramatic causes.

[pbrower2a]

Don't get me wrong: any totalitarian regime in America would be the greatest nightmare in human history. American blacks dwarf the number of Jews murdered in the Holocaust, and the Jewish population of the USA is about the same as the death toll of the Holocaust. Add to this a totalitarian regime in America would have copious atom bombs to use either in diplomatic bullying if not death-tolls of a million or so in some direct attacks. It is up to us Americans to avoid letting our Empire of Liberty become the most powerful evil entity in human existence.

Above all else we must preserve responsible, representative government just to prevent the worse -- at the cost of near-serfdom (the trend of neoliberalism in which most people are heavily in debt and obliged to toil long and hard on behalf of exploitative classes of big rural landowners, Gilded-style plutocrats and financiers, and rapacious landlords and executives, Do I trust such people with my welfare or civil liberties? Not in the least. It's just that democracy does not guarantee desirable results, especially when ruthless and well-heeled elites have learned how to game the system in the service of their greed. This country has a heritage of chattel slavery, and it remains part of American political culture. In practice government at times reflects wealth and (private) bureaucratic power at the expense of all else with the elites trying to maintain some image of decency. So those elites sacrifice a Jeffrey Epstein, Bernie Madoff, or the "Enrob" gang -- what does that prove?

America has not gone pervasive reforms on the scale of the New Deal since the 1930's aside from the Civil Rights struggle (the latter did not challenge capitalism). Since then we had some tough times due to the energy crunch of the 1970's and the rise of a neoliberal ideology that has solved one problem (price stability) at the expense of workers' rights, economic inequality, declining real pay, the disappearance of economic security for anyone not already filthy-rich, huge private debt for working and middle classes as a substitute for adequate pay, despotic management, great concentration of economic power, the ravaging of huge parts of America that once prospered, the rise of anti-rational culture and religion, and the celebration of elite vice. The ethos of those elites is that the rest of us suffer while displaying the "Happy to serve you smile" that one sees on dumb schmucks in many retail places (stupidity is a virtue in American mass culture).

It will likely take some ecological, military, economic, or political disaster to force us to reach bottom and rebuild a more humane, equitable, and sustainable order. We have faced little of the type. Maybe we really needed a full-blown meltdown analogous to the Great Depression to smite the power of monopolists and the executive elite (itself becoming muc like the Soviet nomenklatura) instead of a cheap recovery so that neocon interests could not buy the system.

[JasonBlack]

(03-12-2022, 05:26 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Don't get me wrong: any totalitarian regime in America would be the greatest nightmare in human history. American blacks dwarf the number of Jews murdered in the Holocaust, and the Jewish population of the USA is about the same as the death toll of the Holocaust. Add to this a totalitarian regime in America would have copious atom bombs to use either in diplomatic bullying if not death-tolls of a million or so in some direct attacks. It is up to us Americans to avoid letting our Empire of Liberty become the most powerful evil entity in human existence.

Above all else we must preserve responsible, representative government just to prevent the worse -- at the cost of near-serfdom (the trend of neoliberalism in which most people are heavily in debt and obliged to toil long and hard on behalf of exploitative classes of big rural landowners, Gilded-style plutocrats and financiers, and rapacious landlords and executives, Do I trust such people with my welfare or civil liberties? Not in the least. It's just that democracy does not guarantee desirable results, especially when ruthless and well-heeled elites have learned how to game the system in the service of their greed. This country has a heritage of chattel slavery, and it remains part of American political culture. In practice government at times reflects wealth and (private) bureaucratic power at the expense of all else with the elites trying to maintain some image of decency. So those elites sacrifice a Jeffrey Epstein, Bernie Madoff, or the "Enrob" gang -- what does that prove?

America has not gone pervasive reforms on the scale of the New Deal since the 1930's aside from the Civil Rights struggle (the latter did not challenge capitalism). Since then we had some tough times due to the energy crunch of the 1970's and the rise of a neoliberal ideology that has solved one problem (price stability) at the expense of workers' rights, economic inequality, declining real pay, the disappearance of economic security for anyone not already filthy-rich, huge private debt for working and middle classes as a substitute for adequate pay, despotic management, great concentration of economic power, the ravaging of huge parts of America that once prospered, the rise of anti-rational culture and religion, and the celebration of elite vice. The ethos of those elites is that the rest of us suffer while displaying the "Happy to serve you smile" that one sees on dumb schmucks in many retail places (stupidity is a virtue in American mass culture).

It will likely take some ecological, military, economic, or political disaster to force us to reach bottom and rebuild a more humane, equitable, and sustainable order. We have faced little of the type. Maybe we really needed a full-blown meltdown analogous to the Great Depression to smite the power of monopolists and the executive elite (itself becoming muc like the Soviet nomenklatura) instead of a cheap recovery so that neocon interests could not buy the system.

While we probably disagree about just how right vs left they are, I do think we're at least talking about mostly the same people. Capitalism doesn't work when people can pull up the latter behind them and buy up the game. To me, that's the main issue here. In fact, The Constitution accounted for this with strict limits on the terms of corporations, which were only allowed as a means of facilitating temporary projects for the public good before being dissolved. One political test I took separated out scales for public vs private ownership from scales for low vs high levels of regulation, which I thought was a useful distinction, because you can support private ownership, but also be skeptical that a deregulated market can properly account for externalities (I scored high on private ownership, but only medium low on regulation).