Only Progressives Are Adults? Ask Jeb Bush

[MSimon]

I think there's some kinda misunderstanding.

I'm not getting into an argument over there because I'm not eloquent enough, and don't have as much experience to draw from in terms of concrete evidence to back up my arguments. I'd have to do a lot of homework for it instead of being able to mostly shoot from the hip. I'm not convinced Stross' leftist ideas are wrong, and I'm not convinced there actually is an ultimate political answer, but I do get too many wrong feelings that something's amiss when I read his and their arguments. It reads too much like brainwashed zealotry.

Which then gets me wanting a sanity check, cause even if that same feeling comes thru reading his novels, it just seems like... He should know better?

OK. I just don't have the time for now. But think of the incentives. With a guaranteed income most people won't produce. You do have some crazies like me who can't stop no matter what. I can't stop making things. But that is unusual.

I have been more or less retired since 2006. And yet I have made a small contribution to Polywell and some other things. Idleness is a death sentence for most people and yet they will do nothing if given half a chance.

[Diogenes]

MSimon I have the luxury of being from nowhere in particular, keeping only the parts of other cultures I approve of. Blind tribalism is for suckers.

The load is always uncomfortable and if allowed to grow unchecked it strangles the host. In the name of the greatest good for the greatest number.

Ya know, not to pointlessly stir the pot, but you and/or Diogenes plugged into, for a bit, what looks like an echo chamber over in Charles Stross' comments/forum just might make for interesting, or at least entertaining dialog. If only because of that critical mass of shrewdness and experience.

D. and I agree on a great many things. One of them is that socialism doesn't work. There is no point though in entering that forum because from what I can tell it is full of true believers with hardly any counter weight.

I agree with that. Reason is only useful if dealing with people who are amenable to it. Trying reason on true believers is pointless. They are incapable of thinking outside their "religion."

So let me see. Both D and I agree that over regulation and over taxation of the economic sphere is disastrous to an economy.

Good so far.

I apply that same thinking to the social sphere. D does not.

Yes you do, in seeming unawareness of the nature of the social evolution which necessarily occurred to get us to the point where such ideas can be entertained. You keep wanting to go back to Pagan basics.

He is afraid of what social liberty would bring.

As should be any person who has the slightest inkling of what it means.

Just as your socialists are afraid of what economic liberty would bring.

You give them far too much credit for having pure motives. I on the other hand regard most socialists as desirous of being the nomenklatura in a new pecking order socialist structure. They want to be Lords in a society full of peasants, and that is all. If they fear anything regarding economic liberty it is the fact that it renders their efforts to "run things" irrelevant.

Trouble is the one kind of socialism feeds the other. So the guy who said " libertarianism is the communism of capitalism " was simply being incoherent. Or cute.Or maybe he meant taking liberty to the extreme would lead to disaster. But that is not what we find. Minimum government and a country prospers. Maximum government and a country declines.

Conservatism supports optimal government. Not too much and Not too little. Government must exist to perform certain basic functions, the absence of which would increase the misery level and death of a society. Liberals want too much government control, and Libertarians want too little.

I suppose what hurts D most is that he no longer recognizes the country he grew up in.

No, I recognize it quite well. It is the "New Rome" and it will suffer the same fate as the old Rome. Whether technology can keep staving off the eventual collapse or not is the only piece of uncertainty I see regarding what the eventual outcome will be.

For me it is heading in a direction I could only have dreamed of 25 years ago. So for him the current situation is pain all around. For me it is hopeful. I think we will correct the economic strangulation and the social strangulation is already well into the unwinding.

The society is already well into the unwinding. That is why such nonsensical ideas as legalized drugs, transgender/homosexuality, toleration of Islam, Obamacare and other spending insanity, and Political correctness are currently waxing. Did you see the new Pennsylvania Physician-General? Here ya go!






We used to put these people into nuthouses, but now we make them government officials!

[Diogenes]

What is ironic is that you talk to the right about Prohibition and all their economics goes out the window.

The existing economic system is based on the foundation of certain philosophical/moral ideas. Economics which undermine the foundation upon which the whole system is based are positive feedback effects for destruction. Look at Slavery.


There is a reason why government prohibits the sales of certain dangerous products, like Sarin Gas, Weaponized Anthrax, Nuclear Material, Explosives, and Chemical destructive agents such as narcotic drugs.


It's because the consequences of permitting such economic freedoms is far worse than any benefit to be derived from tolerating them.

[Diogenes]

It is amazing that the once proud and independent Scots have fallen for a politics of dependency. They used to favor liberty.

I mark this as the corrosive effect of government tampering with the social structure. It has caused the same problem in this country.


Taking handouts ruins a people.

[MSimon]

OK. Let us do a check to see who believes in less regulation in the social sphere? Say what you can consume.

I favor disbanding the regulators at the DEA. And I'd disband ATF as well. That would also have the advantage of keeping government out of the tool business.

In fact I'd disband all the agencies not in existence in 1820. Close enough to the Revolution where Liberty was still an important virtue/principle for control of government. But to keep the discussion simple for now DEA and ATF. And note: I consider alcohol a very dangerous drug.

[Diogenes]

OK. Let us do a check to see who believes in less regulation in the social sphere? Say what you can consume.

I feel no more like humoring you regarding your obsession with drugs than I do with humoring that sick man that wants to believe he is going to become a woman.

[MSimon]

OK. Let us do a check to see who believes in less regulation in the social sphere? Say what you can consume.

I feel no more like humoring you regarding your obsession with drugs than I do with humoring that sick man that wants to believe he is going to become a woman.

Thank you for proving my point. You don't believe in limited government in the social sphere.

Funny enough the liberals do. At least to some extent.

BTW how does it feel to have the same attitude to the Constitution the liberals have? Toilet paper. You know. No prohibition Amendment. The conservatives of 1914 were of the opinion the Federal government didn't have the power. With respect to heroin no less. When did conservatives come to a different conclusion? What caused them to change their mind? It must have been they decided that racism was in their interest. Just as liberals claim.

"Look, we understood we couldn't make it illegal to be young or poor or black in the United States, but we could criminalize their common pleasure. We understood that drugs were not the health problem we were making them out to be, but it was such a perfect issue...that we couldn't resist it." - John Ehrlichman, White House counsel to President Nixon on the rationale for the War on Drugs.

Evidently you can't resist it either.

Have a nice day.

[TDPerk]

Diogenes, between you thinking the government can prohibit recreational drugs without the authority to do it, never-mind it wouldn't have the right to do it even if an amendment were made, and your depraved contempt for someone dealing with a birth defect as best they can--your proud hatefulness is breathtaking.

But we can all be glad MSimon isn't claiming pot can cure transgenderism.

[Diogenes]

Diogenes, between you thinking the government can prohibit recreational drugs without the authority to do it,

Disagree with this idea completely. A government which cannot secure the lives and safety of it's populace cannot remain a government.

never-mind it wouldn't have the right to do it even if an amendment were made,

You are going to argue "natural law" on this? There is nothing natural about chemically tampering with your decision making process.

and your depraved contempt for someone dealing with a birth defect as best they can--your proud hatefulness is breathtaking.

It is not rational to indulge people with serious mental issues in their fantasies. If the man thought he was Napoleon it would be no less of a break from reality.




Every cell of his body contains a "Y" chromosome making him male down to the molecular level. Having no patience with people who desperately want to believe delusions does not make someone "hateful" it makes them rational.


While we're on the subject, let us see what is the position of a former psychiatrist-in-chief for John Hopkins Hospital. "Transgender is ‘Mental Disorder;’ Sex Change ‘Biologically Impossible’ " Good. Just what I thought. Glad a Professional cleared that up.

But we can all be glad MSimon isn't claiming pot can cure transgenderism.

If he has not already done so, I expect that will be coming. That is unless he considers it a "normal" condition and therefore in no need of a cure.

[MSimon]

Disagree with this idea completely. A government which cannot secure the lives and safety of it's populace cannot remain a government.

Well they don't seem to be able to secure our lives and safety in the face of the threat from alcohol. Not just the 1,000 a year that die from overdoses but also the 20,000 a year killed by intoxicated drivers.

I guess the gubbermint should dissolve itself then and we should find one that will.

I hear Islam is pretty good on alcohol. Perhaps Saudi Arabia should be given a chance.

And it appears that we are not safe from accidents or cancer. Do you have any idea how many kids a year die from 5 gallon buckets? In fact we are not safe from old age either. Damnb gubbermint any way. It totally fails to keep Americans safe.

The answer is I believe that we have a shocking lack of enforcers. If only the gubbermint forced people to eat right and live right no one would be dying. A ban on 32 oz soft drinks sold by those fast food criminals would be a start.