Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Donald Trump and Dictatorial Taste
#41
(03-17-2017, 02:50 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(03-16-2017, 12:05 PM)SomeGuy Wrote:
(03-16-2017, 11:10 AM)The Wonkette Wrote:
(03-15-2017, 03:58 PM)Galen Wrote: I never thought of it that way but your right.  Should serve as an object lesson as to why governments need to be kept small. Smile
Yeah, except for the small detail that I enjoy breathing free air.  Reducing pollution is one of those "externalities" that the free market isn't very good at handling.

For the sake of argument, this could probably be handled by common law as well, and was well into the 20th century.  Injunctions stemming from personal injury claims were actually far stricter than later statutory rules.  Part of the reasoning behind them was to protect corporations from nuisance lawsuits in the interests of development.

Which is what injunctions generally do; protect corporations, not the people.

Eric, I know you're an ignoramus, but you do realize that he just said that the statutory rules and Executive Department regulations were less (not more) strict than common law injunctions against corporations.
It really is all mathematics.

Turn on to Daddy, Tune in to Nationalism, Drop out of UN/NATO/WTO/TPP/NAFTA/CAFTA Globalism.
Reply
#42
So what is good taste? As usual, restraint. It's safe to say that the Prime Minister of the UK is still one of the most powerful people in the world. To be sure, even Sir Winston Churchill did not have or did not use the power to order the murder of a dissident or an opponent, unlike some of the dictators depicted through their digs. He had other, more pressing concerns.

This is 10 Downing Street:

[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRBReoFro9D-ZxABB-MK8l...7Fv8apwEa-]

Nothing gaudy here.

[Image: 1.jpg]


Symmetry rules. It's Victorian except for the computer.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply
#43
Within the range of a fairly-successful physician?

[Image: kitchen_1905405a.jpg]

Someone middle-class would not be intimidated.

Again:  not very intimidating.

[Image: 10-downing-street-entrance-hall-looking-...C2MPT7.jpg]
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply
#44
I doubt you have photos of the third floor of Number 10. The first two floors are governmental offices and as such are regulated by legislation. They've essentially not been updated except for equipment since the Iron Lady's day.
It really is all mathematics.

Turn on to Daddy, Tune in to Nationalism, Drop out of UN/NATO/WTO/TPP/NAFTA/CAFTA Globalism.
Reply
#45
If I had only four pictures, then it is likely that I missed at least one floor.

As I got these images from a search engine, I wanted to be sure that the images were not from a "10 Downing Street" in some rinky-dink town in the American Midwest, where "10 Downing Street" might be a bar, a schoolhouse, a church, a car dealership, or a Masonic Lodge.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply
#46
(03-16-2017, 12:05 PM)SomeGuy Wrote:
(03-16-2017, 11:10 AM)The Wonkette Wrote:
(03-15-2017, 03:58 PM)Galen Wrote: I never thought of it that way but your right.  Should serve as an object lesson as to why governments need to be kept small. Smile
Yeah, except for the small detail that I enjoy breathing free air.  Reducing pollution is one of those "externalities" that the free market isn't very good at handling.

For the sake of argument, this could probably be handled by common law as well, and was well into the 20th century.  Injunctions stemming from personal injury claims were actually far stricter than later statutory rules.  Part of the reasoning behind them was to protect corporations from nuisance lawsuits in the interests of development.

Excellent! Someone who has actually done his homework.  This is precisely the libertarian position as explained by Murray Rothbard.
Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard. -- H.L. Mencken

If one rejects laissez faire on account of man's fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action.   -- Ludwig von Mises
Reply
#47
(03-17-2017, 04:17 AM)Kinser79 Wrote:
(03-17-2017, 02:50 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: Which is what injunctions generally do; protect corporations, not the people.

Eric, I know you're an ignoramus, but you do realize that he just said that the statutory rules and Executive Department regulations were less (not more) strict than common law injunctions against corporations.

I find it ironic that Eric the Obtuse is basically arguing the libertarian position on regulatory capture.  It is a virtual certainty that the Obtuse One did not realize that he was arguing a libertarian position.
Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard. -- H.L. Mencken

If one rejects laissez faire on account of man's fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action.   -- Ludwig von Mises
Reply
#48
(03-18-2017, 04:09 AM)Galen Wrote:
(03-17-2017, 04:17 AM)Kinser79 Wrote:
(03-17-2017, 02:50 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: Which is what injunctions generally do; protect corporations, not the people.

Eric, I know you're an ignoramus, but you do realize that he just said that the statutory rules and Executive Department regulations were less (not more) strict than common law injunctions against corporations.

I find it ironic that Eric the Obtuse is basically arguing the libertarian position on regulatory capture.  It is a virtual certainty that the Obtuse One did not realize that he was arguing a libertarian position.

In a crony-capitalist world both government and Big Business are to be evaded if one isn't in on the scam and relishes freedom.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply
#49
(03-18-2017, 01:52 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: So what is good taste? As usual, restraint. It's safe to say that the Prime Minister of the UK is still one of the most powerful people in the world. To be sure, even Sir Winston Churchill did not have or did not use the power to order the murder of a dissident or an opponent, unlike some of the dictators depicted through their digs. He had other, more pressing concerns.  

This is 10 Downing Street:

[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRBReoFro9D-ZxABB-MK8l...7Fv8apwEa-]

Nothing gaudy here.

[Image: 1.jpg]


Symmetry rules. It's Victorian except for the computer.

Victorian?  When I picture a Victorian parlor, simplicity is not what comes to mind.  Smile

[Image: 0db4e3f6909fc7b390f2bfd3c8745b71.jpg]
Reply
#50
(03-18-2017, 04:09 AM)Galen Wrote:
(03-17-2017, 04:17 AM)Kinser79 Wrote:
(03-17-2017, 02:50 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: Which is what injunctions generally do; protect corporations, not the people.

Eric, I know you're an ignoramus, but you do realize that he just said that the statutory rules and Executive Department regulations were less (not more) strict than common law injunctions against corporations.

I find it ironic that Eric the Obtuse is basically arguing the libertarian position on regulatory capture.  It is a virtual certainty that the Obtuse One did not realize that he was arguing a libertarian position.

Well Eric is only complying with Kinser's Second Law.

"On a long enough timeline Eric will eventually contradict himself in a thread."

Sometimes he'll contradict himself in the same post, sometimes it takes a few pages into the conversation, but without fail he will eventually contradict himself.

What remains to be seen is if he is actually aware of his tendency to be self-contradictory.
It really is all mathematics.

Turn on to Daddy, Tune in to Nationalism, Drop out of UN/NATO/WTO/TPP/NAFTA/CAFTA Globalism.
Reply
#51
(03-18-2017, 01:36 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: What remains to be seen is if he is actually aware of his tendency to be self-contradictory.

Self-awareness is not something I associate with Eric the Obtuse.
Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard. -- H.L. Mencken

If one rejects laissez faire on account of man's fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action.   -- Ludwig von Mises
Reply
#52
(03-19-2017, 04:40 AM)Galen Wrote:
(03-18-2017, 01:36 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: What remains to be seen is if he is actually aware of his tendency to be self-contradictory.

Self-awareness is not something I associate with Eric the Obtuse.

I don't associate self-awareness with boomers in general.  Eric just happens to be the Boomerest boomer.
It really is all mathematics.

Turn on to Daddy, Tune in to Nationalism, Drop out of UN/NATO/WTO/TPP/NAFTA/CAFTA Globalism.
Reply
#53
(03-18-2017, 11:52 AM)The Wonkette Wrote:
(03-18-2017, 01:52 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: So what is good taste? As usual, restraint. It's safe to say that the Prime Minister of the UK is still one of the most powerful people in the world. To be sure, even Sir Winston Churchill did not have or did not use the power to order the murder of a dissident or an opponent, unlike some of the dictators depicted through their digs. He had other, more pressing concerns.  

Victorian?  When I picture a Victorian parlor, simplicity is not what comes to mind.  Smile

[Image: 0db4e3f6909fc7b390f2bfd3c8745b71.jpg]


10 Downing Street apparently does not have the infamous Victorian parlor that features such nouveau-riche excess. I can imagine someone having a display like this after winning the Super Duper Megabucks lottery.

Parlors have disappeared from modern life or become mere 'porches', and even those are rare in American life. A parlor is simply the outermost show of display to people who might never be invited fully into one's house. They are simply impractical.

It is in bad taste to overwhelm or intimidate a guest. Clutter (see how I mocked Imelda Marcos, arguably the worst sort of woman possible -- a tyrant's moll -- see Elena Ceausescu, Simone Duvalier, Magda Goebbels, Sajida Hussein, Chiang Ching) is always in bad taste.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply
#54
(03-18-2017, 11:52 AM)The Wonkette Wrote:
(03-18-2017, 01:52 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: So what is good taste? As usual, restraint. It's safe to say that the Prime Minister of the UK is still one of the most powerful people in the world. To be sure, even Sir Winston Churchill did not have or did not use the power to order the murder of a dissident or an opponent, unlike some of the dictators depicted through their digs. He had other, more pressing concerns.  

This is 10 Downing Street:

[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRBReoFro9D-ZxABB-MK8l...7Fv8apwEa-]

Nothing gaudy here.

[Image: 1.jpg]


Symmetry rules. It's Victorian except for the computer.

Victorian?  When I picture a Victorian parlor, simplicity is not what comes to mind.  Smile

[Image: 0db4e3f6909fc7b390f2bfd3c8745b71.jpg]

Georgian rather than Victorian, then?

Apparently that entrance hall has had a black and white checkered floor since the 1780s.

https://www.gov.uk/government/history/10-downing-street
Reply
#55
(03-18-2017, 09:26 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:
(03-18-2017, 04:09 AM)Galen Wrote:
(03-17-2017, 04:17 AM)Kinser79 Wrote:
(03-17-2017, 02:50 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: Which is what injunctions generally do; protect corporations, not the people.

Eric, I know you're an ignoramus, but you do realize that he just said that the statutory rules and Executive Department regulations were less (not more) strict than common law injunctions against corporations.

I find it ironic that Eric the Obtuse is basically arguing the libertarian position on regulatory capture.  It is a virtual certainty that the Obtuse One did not realize that he was arguing a libertarian position.

In a crony-capitalist world both government and Big Business are to be evaded if one isn't in on the scam and relishes freedom.

One can only have a crony capitalist world if the government is big enough for politicians to dish out favors for their friends in big business.  Big business itself is relatively easy to evade.  Government is not.
It really is all mathematics.

Turn on to Daddy, Tune in to Nationalism, Drop out of UN/NATO/WTO/TPP/NAFTA/CAFTA Globalism.
Reply
#56
(03-19-2017, 10:51 AM)gabrielle Wrote:
(03-18-2017, 11:52 AM)The Wonkette Wrote:
(03-18-2017, 01:52 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: So what is good taste? As usual, restraint. It's safe to say that the Prime Minister of the UK is still one of the most powerful people in the world. To be sure, even Sir Winston Churchill did not have or did not use the power to order the murder of a dissident or an opponent, unlike some of the dictators depicted through their digs. He had other, more pressing concerns.  

This is 10 Downing Street:

[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRBReoFro9D-ZxABB-MK8l...7Fv8apwEa-]

Nothing gaudy here.

[Image: 1.jpg]


Symmetry rules. It's Victorian except for the computer.

Victorian?  When I picture a Victorian parlor, simplicity is not what comes to mind.  Smile

[Image: 0db4e3f6909fc7b390f2bfd3c8745b71.jpg]

Georgian rather than Victorian, then?

Apparently that entrance hall has had a black and white checkered floor since the 1780s.

https://www.gov.uk/government/history/10-downing-street

Victorians often had a love of archaic styles --and Georgian was one of the favored styles.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply
#57
(03-19-2017, 03:38 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: Big business itself is relatively easy to evade.

Not if it is powerful enough to make itself the state.

There are two kinds of states, on one hand you have states where the government is an agent of the popular will and on the other hand you have states that are basically the collective property of private interests. The former tend to be democracies, the later autocracies or narrow oligarchies. Libertarianism is the ideological propaganda of Oligarchy.
#MakeTheDemocratsGreatAgain
Reply
#58
(03-19-2017, 03:38 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:
(03-18-2017, 09:26 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:
(03-18-2017, 04:09 AM)Galen Wrote:
(03-17-2017, 04:17 AM)Kinser79 Wrote:
(03-17-2017, 02:50 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: Which is what injunctions generally do; protect corporations, not the people.

Eric, (insult redacted), but you do realize that he just said that the statutory rules and Executive Department regulations were less (not more) strict than common law injunctions against corporations.

I find it ironic that Eric (insult redacted) is basically arguing the libertarian position on regulatory capture.  It is a virtual certainty that the Obtuse One did not realize that he was arguing a libertarian position.

In a crony-capitalist world both government and Big Business are to be evaded if one isn't in on the scam and relishes freedom.

One can only have a crony capitalist world if the government is big enough for politicians to dish out favors for their friends in big business.  Big business itself is relatively easy to evade.  Government is not.

Not if Big Business has taken over the state, and not if Big Business has deputized Big Government to control the People.  Feudalism, one of the old forms of tyranny, implies a weak state but one in which the manorial lord has all power over the serf. One might be safe from the caprice of the King who is simply the biggest landowner in the country only to be under the rule of some lord who has the power of life and death over one. If one is under the absolute power of such a lord one has no freedom. "Obey or die" is not freedom.

Libertarianism is a utopian dream. There is not and has never been a libertarian state; there is no convincing evidence that a libertarian society would not turn into a new form of feudalism.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply
#59
(03-20-2017, 07:04 AM)Odin Wrote:
(03-19-2017, 03:38 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: Big business itself is relatively easy to evade.

Not if it is powerful enough to make itself the state.

There are two kinds of states, on one hand you have states where the government is an agent of the popular will and on the other hand you have states that are basically the collective property of private interests. The former tend to be democracies, the later autocracies or narrow oligarchies. Libertarianism is the ideological propaganda of Oligarchy.

ROFLAMO

Odin have you learned nothing about history?  Or is your head so full of bullshit you can't.

States that attempt to base themselves on popular will are inherently unstable.  Democracies either degenerate into tyrannies of the majority or into chaos.  Which of course is why the US is not a democracy and never has been.  It is of course a Republic.

As for Oligarchy, it is more or less the natural state for mankind.  There is a class that rules and a class that is ruled.  But in no case has there ever been such a class, ruled or ruling that was frozen in stasis without the intervention of the state
It really is all mathematics.

Turn on to Daddy, Tune in to Nationalism, Drop out of UN/NATO/WTO/TPP/NAFTA/CAFTA Globalism.
Reply
#60
(03-20-2017, 09:32 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:
(03-19-2017, 03:38 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:
(03-18-2017, 09:26 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:
(03-18-2017, 04:09 AM)Galen Wrote:
(03-17-2017, 04:17 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: Eric, (insult redacted), but you do realize that he just said that the statutory rules and Executive Department regulations were less (not more) strict than common law injunctions against corporations.

I find it ironic that Eric (insult redacted) is basically arguing the libertarian position on regulatory capture.  It is a virtual certainty that the Obtuse One did not realize that he was arguing a libertarian position.

In a crony-capitalist world both government and Big Business are to be evaded if one isn't in on the scam and relishes freedom.

One can only have a crony capitalist world if the government is big enough for politicians to dish out favors for their friends in big business.  Big business itself is relatively easy to evade.  Government is not.

Not if Big Business has taken over the state, and not if Big Business has deputized Big Business to control the People.  Feudalism, one of the old forms of tyranny, implies a weak state but one in which the manorial lord has all power over the serf. One might be safe from the caprice of the King who is simply the biggest landowner in the country only to be under the rule of some lord who has the power of life and death over one. If one is under the absolute power of such a lord one has no freedom. "Obey or die" is not freedom.

Libertarianism is a utopian dream. There is not and has never been a libertarian state; there is no convincing evidence that a libertarian society would not turn into a new form of feudalism.

Big business doesn't have to "take over the state", monopolies are created by the state.  In the modern format mostly through regulatory capture--but prior to that things were a little more direct.  As for businesses getting big to start with--well that's capitalism for you.  Expand or die.

As to Libertarianism I'll let the Libertarians answer for that, you know considering I'm not a Libertarian.
It really is all mathematics.

Turn on to Daddy, Tune in to Nationalism, Drop out of UN/NATO/WTO/TPP/NAFTA/CAFTA Globalism.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Internet Trolls and Donald Trump gabrielle 25 16,388 10-29-2018, 01:06 PM
Last Post: David Horn
  Academic freedom and Donald Trump pbrower2a 21 9,245 02-21-2017, 09:39 AM
Last Post: pbrower2a

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)