Bernie Sanders and the establishment DNC

[vantexan]

But it is also the case that humans, our ancestors, have spent the vast majority of their tenure on earth banding together in small -- likely egalitarian -- groups, without the wonders of the state, capitalism, and all our modern solutions for living.

But they banded together primarily for protection in a world dominated by those who took from others by force. And egalitarian implies equality among adults but women didn't have that equality unless born into a royal family. It was a world of hard manual labor and women saw to the needs of their men and bore them children. So our constitution today gives a framework that allows women and everyone else self determination. Because of our low birthrate and high divorce rates we may have outsmarted ourselves, but no one wants to go back to a different era.

 

[Serf]

Will Bernie end all Financial Aid to Israel and Tax Universities that have more than 500 million in Endowments? The answer is no. Will Trump actually get his physical wall erected that is 800 or so miles long? The answer is no. It all seems so tiresome.

 

[rickyb]

Rights are something you have, they are not earned. Military and police protection of those rights are earned through tax payments. If you don't work and don't pay taxes, you are not earning police and military protection, they are a gift, or you are leech on the system, being supported by everyone around you. Someone pays for those things, they are not free, you haven't earned them just by being born.

I said this in a response to @Whither, all types of societies are obligative to one degree or another. It's the social contract theory. A contract exists not only between the government and the governed (the constitution), but a theoretical one exists between/among the people to each other. If you are not doing something to earn what you have, someone else is. You are obligated to participate in a helpful and meaningful way within the society to share in the benefits of being part of that society.

Philosophical communism suggests that people will just do so out of the kindness of their hearts. That's the promised utopia waved around by party communists to get people on board. If it ever comes to fruition, it almost immediately breaks down once real human nature kicks in. People believe they are entitled to whatever is promised regardless of how much they work to earn it. Some stop working, then whole industries. Then the government, who owns the industries due to socialism, forces the people back to work in labor camps. Dissidents are sent to the labor camps, political rivals are executed or sent to the labor camps. The promise is that once they purge the undeserving, and they have the right leadership, the utopia will be realized.

Libertarianism, or classical liberalism if you prefer, takes real human nature into consideration, and realizes that people need an incentive to participate meaningfully in society. Market economies are so efficient, and generate enough wealth, that they can tolerate and subsidize quite a large number of social programs. But those programs aren't free, they were earned by someone. Generally lots of someones. So, go do your part to earn what you get, and if you want more, work harder or smarter.

communism to me is putting power in the hands of workers and the communities not a few capitalists and politicians.

libertarianism is the same thing. the american definition and abberatiion of the word is what you said.

markets are overrated.

america has labour camps like slave labour in jail, you treat dissidents like crap, and execute politicians or steal the election from them if they win popular vote.

i agree there is a debt that everyone must try to pay if we want civilization and freedom which btw we dont have and never had.

 

[rickyb]

The party is damaged goods no matter what they do with Bernie.
The implode is happening before our eyes.

no stealing an election from voters is quite different from not. but yea democrats sold out long ago.

 

[rickyb]

you know...the dilapitated house and the rich house could very well be in america, and be the result of capitalism not socialism.

 

[rickyb]

we must invade america and export democracy:

Glenn Greenwald Retweeted

Ted Hamm
@HammerDaily
·
6h
In 1860, Abe Lincoln won with 40% of popular vote. Three Dems split other 60%. If only the Dems had super-delegates to straighten things out...
Quote Tweet

Soledad O'Brien
@soledadobrien
· Feb 28
66 percent of Democratic voters who don’t support Bernie seems to be the majority, yes? https://twitter.com/peterdaou/stat

 

[Non sequitur]

Bernie Sanders solution for everything

 

[zubenelgenubi]

communism to me is putting power in the hands of workers and the communities not a few capitalists and politicians.

Except all that ever happens in a political communistic government is that power ends up in the hands of very few politicians. You can have all the good intentions you want, but it just doesn't work that way.

libertarianism is the same thing. the american definition and abberatiion of the word is what you said.

I disagree. The US was born out of libertarian thinking.

markets are overrated.

That's like saying air is overrated.

america has labour camps like slave labour in jail, you treat dissidents like crap, and execute politicians or steal the election from them if they win popular vote.

I won't disagree that a lot of our laws are garbage, and that we have a lot of people in prison who shouldn't be there. But at least people get a trial and have appeals, unlike in the gulags.

i agree there is a debt that everyone must try to pay if we want civilization and freedom which btw we dont have and never had.

We don't have freedom, or civilization? I assume you mean freedom, to which I will reiterate, liberty is an ideal, we cannot ever truly be free. The freedom to chose the chains that bind us, and not have them forced on us, is the best we can hope for. It's also a matter of perspective. You can choose to see everything in your life as oppressive, or you can choose to be grateful, and liberate yourself from the misery of ingratitude.

 

[vantexan]

Bernie Sanders solution for everything

I wonder what the Russians thought of that?

 

[Whither]

I don't really want to write another book tonight, so I'll try to be brief. Lysander Spooner believed that every generation should draw up its own constitution, for that very reason. But the constitition, at least in the US, doesn't directly place any burden on individuals, except for jury duty, even voting isn't mandatory. Rather it constrains government power, affirms natural rights, and establishes the government's responsibility to protect those rights. Not too bad of a contract for us as individuals.

The situation could be worse. However, it is very clear that state power -- e.g., the executive branch -- has expanded considerably since at least the Cold War, and always under the auspices of national security. I know you remember the old adage re: exchanging liberty for security ... And this is to say nothing of the line all states have taken against rebellious workers: they have always, correctly, been perceived as a threat (a dangerous 'faction' in the language of Federalist 10) and neutralized as expediently as possible -- with the carrot and/or the stick.

Arnarchy is a failure because it immediatey leads to despotism and, in turn, tyranical statism. Even tribes have hierarchical structures. Someone has to have a final say, or you only have violence as a means of settling disputes. In that sense, the only thing that changes as a society grows, is the complexity.

There's no evidence that anything like states/governments existed until roughly 5000 years ago. However, taking your thought for granted, arbitrarily granting a person or an institution 'the final say' does not resolve the problem of violence, it just displaces it by rhetorical (mystical) means. For example, the authority decides a person must be executed, banished, physically restrained, but the same actions are considered violent when conducted without the sanction of the authority.

In any case you are rehashing the ancient complaints of administrators. The common refrain has been: "The barbarians/savages in our hinterlands are lazy, do not submit to laws, do not pay tribute/taxes, and are caught in a vicious cycles of war/violence. Let us make them see reason! Let us bring peace!" Even if we suppose it is generally true -- that life under state rule decreases one's risk of suffering brute, physical violence --, there are still live questions. What other kinds of violence germinate within state societies? Are these worse, and precisely because we are so accustomed to them that we hardly notice? And, ultimately, is the 'bargain' worth it: is it worse to live a freer life at greater risk of violent death or a controlled life at less risk of violent death?

I disagree with your assertion, if I understand it correctly, that human nature is shaped, or dependant on historical conditions. Individual psychology is hopeless as a field of study, but group psychology is understood well enough to be able to say that humans have a nature. The biggest drivers of human behavior are timeless: survival, the drive to reproduce, and impending death. Those things don't change, regardless of conditions.

Since we are talking here re: the 'nature', e.g., biological drives, that we share with other animals, would you say there is no difference between the lives of animals born in the wild and those born in captivity? An old biology teacher used to say "genes load the gun and the environment pulls the trigger." Circumstances are always a crucial factor.

Market economies are as separate an idea from individual liberty as socialism is from communism.

Well put. This is why I have as little interest in socialism as I do capitalism.

 

[BigUnionGuy]

 

[rickyb]

Except all that ever happens in a political communistic government is that power ends up in the hands of very few politicians. You can have all the good intentions you want, but it just doesn't work that way.



I disagree. The US was born out of libertarian thinking.



That's like saying air is overrated.



I won't disagree that a lot of our laws are garbage, and that we have a lot of people in prison who shouldn't be there. But at least people get a trial and have appeals, unlike in the gulags.



We don't have freedom, or civilization? I assume you mean freedom, to which I will reiterate, liberty is an ideal, we cannot ever truly be free. The freedom to chose the chains that bind us, and not have them forced on us, is the best we can hope for. It's also a matter of perspective. You can choose to see everything in your life as oppressive, or you can choose to be grateful, and liberate yourself from the misery of ingratitude.

being actually free is objectively measured.

the current US system has power in a few political and economic hands, so what are you bragging about?

you do have gulags, most cases are plea bargains not trials

 

[newfie]

Will Bernie end all Financial Aid to Israel and Tax Universities that have more than 500 million in Endowments? The answer is no. Will Trump actually get his physical wall erected that is 800 or so miles long? The answer is no. It all seems so tiresome.

whats stopping trump on the wall? he's won the financing battles

 

[zubenelgenubi]

being actually free is objectively measured.

the current US system has power in a few political and economic hands, so what are you bragging about?

you do have gulags, most cases are plea bargains not trials

This quote is also in response to your post @Whither

“It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt.” -John Philpot Curran

Every person accused has the right to a trial by jury, the plea deals are an option. You can compare our prison and justice systems to those of the gulags, but I know which one you would choose to be subjected to if you had to. I agree that a lot about our country needs to be improved, but I will also assert that the movement towards dependence on the government is what has been the driving force behind most of our problems.

 

[zubenelgenubi]

There's no evidence that anything like states/governments existed until roughly 5000 years ago. However, taking your thought for granted, arbitrarily granting a person or an institution 'the final say' does not resolve the problem of violence, it just displaces it by rhetorical (mystical) means. For example, the authority decides a person must be executed, banished, physically restrained, but the same actions are considered violent when conducted without the sanction of the authority.

In any case you are rehashing the ancient complaints of administrators. The common refrain has been: "The barbarians/savages in our hinterlands are lazy, do not submit to laws, do not pay tribute/taxes, and are caught in a vicious cycles of war/violence. Let us make them see reason! Let us bring peace!" Even if we suppose it is generally true -- that life under state rule decreases one's risk of suffering brute, physical violence --, there are still live questions. What other kinds of violence germinate within state societies? Are these worse, and precisely because we are so accustomed to them that we hardly notice? And, ultimately, is the 'bargain' worth it: is it worse to live a freer life at greater risk of violent death or a controlled life at less risk of violent death?

Groups of people organize themselves into hierarchies (which is another reason anarchy doesn't work). How is a tribal chieftain, or clan elder different than the state? Scale. I will leave it at that for now. We are discussing much too large of topics to cover succinctly.

Since we are talking here re: the 'nature', e.g., biological drives, that we share with other animals, would you say there is no difference between the lives of animals born in the wild and those born in captivity? An old biology teacher used to say "genes load the gun and the environment pulls the trigger." Circumstances are always a crucial factor.

Actually, I brought up a drive that is specific to humans, the awareness of our impending death. We also have the capability of envisioning a future, and taking steps to bring about that vision. We have been wrestling with those abilities since we first noticed them.

Environment may impact expression of genes, but it still doesn't change the things that drive us. Maybe if we figure out immortality, I will grant you that would absolutely impact our nature. We would necessarily become something entirely different than human. Aside from that, I'll leave the discussion of epigenetics for another time.

Well put. This is why I have as little interest in socialism as I do capitalism.

Market economies, are the natural result of humans interacting with each other and trading, each for his or her best interest. Socialism is a belief that markets can be made more efficient through state control, and Capitalism is the same belief about individual control. What we end up with, since both are idealogical, is something in the middle. The question I have for you, if you don't care much for either, is what is the alternative?

 

[Whither]

On a related note, this afternoon I went to a special UPS package union meeting called for the benefit of us T-S drivers. One of the BAs gave the obligatory pitch for DRIVE, e.g., "supporting candidates that support us ... blah blah blah." I was much more interested to hear that he and others are close to organizing a building of XPO drivers. Politics is a dead-end for unions ... the only real gains we ever make come from demonstrations of our power, e.g., those rare occasions when workers show that they can be a tangible threat to the existing order ...

This quote is also in response to your post @Whither

“It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt.” -John Philpot Curran

I would argue among those of us who enjoy a decent standard of living, it is our (relative) material success that usually enables vigilance to lapse into indolence. In other words, it is not a surprise that middle class lasted, what, 2 generations. Serious threats to the existing order are brought back into the fold by means of the carrot (the American Dream), then once these threats have been weakened, the stick enjoys free rein.

I will share a quote in return.

“My conception of freedom. -- The value of a thing sometimes does not lie in that which one attains by it, but in what one pays for it -- what it costs us. I shall give an example. Liberal institutions cease to be liberal as soon as they are attained: later on, there are no worse and no more thorough injurers of freedom than liberal institutions. Their effects are known well enough: they undermine the will to power; they level mountain and valley, and call that morality; they make men small, cowardly, and hedonistic -- every time it is the herd animal that triumphs with them. Liberalism: in other words, herd-animalization.”
- Nietzsche

 

[Whither]

The question I have for you, if you don't care much for either, is what is the alternative?

I think the plans of mice and men are forever apt to go awry. It is delusional, dreaming up grand schemes for improvement when our heritage is a catastrophe, accident piling on accident. I've said elsewhere here that unintended consequences are the decisive factor in our lives, not well-meaning, well-thought-out intentions carried out as imagined. Hell, you could say the plans of revolutionists are comparable to the route plans of UPS lol.

It is the past which haunts, and actively thwarts, us. All the dead, ruthlessly exploited labor which bears down on our shoulders. The lives of our ancestors, which counted for nothing, and which might have a union member sympathizing with Tony Soprano's speech.

It is the past which calls for redemption, not the future. So the problem is not a matter of forming plans for the future, but of reckoning with history.

 

[zubenelgenubi]

On a related note, this afternoon I went to a special UPS package union meeting called for the benefit of us T-S drivers. One of the BAs gave the obligatory pitch for DRIVE, e.g., "supporting candidates that support us ... blah blah blah." I was much more interested to hear that he and others are close to organizing a building of XPO drivers. Politics is a dead-end for unions ... the only real gains we ever make come from demonstrations of our power, e.g., those rare occasions when workers show that they can be a tangible threat to the existing order ...



I would argue among those of us who enjoy a decent standard of living, it is our (relative) material success that usually enables vigilance to lapse into indolence. In other words, it is not a surprise that middle class lasted, what, 2 generations. Serious threats to the existing order are brought back into the fold by means of the carrot (the American Dream), then once these threats have been weakened, the stick enjoys free rein.

I will share a quote in return.

“My conception of freedom. -- The value of a thing sometimes does not lie in that which one attains by it, but in what one pays for it -- what it costs us. I shall give an example. Liberal institutions cease to be liberal as soon as they are attained: later on, there are no worse and no more thorough injurers of freedom than liberal institutions. Their effects are known well enough: they undermine the will to power; they level mountain and valley, and call that morality; they make men small, cowardly, and hedonistic -- every time it is the herd animal that triumphs with them. Liberalism: in other words, herd-animalization.”
- Nietzsche

I like that quote. I like Nietzsche in general. I also agree that attaining a certain level of comfort does make us soft. The end should never be comfort, the struggle should always be for freedom. And in the struggle is where we find meaning. Laziness borne out of comfort is certainly a pitfall of "liberal institutions" but not an unavoidable one, and I'll take that over a high likelihood of a brutal death any day.

I think the plans of mice and men are forever apt to go awry. It is delusional, dreaming up grand schemes for improvement when our heritage is a catastrophe, accident piling on accident.

I couldn't agree more. I consider myself to be an absurdist, and you have encapsulated that philosophy very well here.

I've said elsewhere here that unintended consequences are the decisive factor in our lives, not well-meaning, well-thought-out intentions carried out as imagined. Hell, you could say the plans of revolutionists are comparable to the route plans of UPS lol.

It is the past which haunts, and actively thwarts, us. All the dead, ruthlessly exploited labor which bears down on our shoulders. The lives of our ancestors, which counted for nothing, and which might have a union member sympathizing with Tony Soprano's speech.

It is the past which calls for redemption, not the future. So the problem is not a matter of forming plans for the future, but of reckoning with history.

It's interesting that you bring up Nietzche, as he is a pessimist of strength, criticizing his contemporary pessimist philosophers as being pessimists of weakness. I may be wrong, but it seems like your thinking lines up more with the other pessimists. Whereas they are apt to say there is no solution, so there is no point in trying, Nietzsche would say there probably is no solution, but that is all the more reason to dare to look for one anyway.

 

[rickyb]

This quote is also in response to your post @Whither

“It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt.” -John Philpot Curran

Every person accused has the right to a trial by jury, the plea deals are an option. You can compare our prison and justice systems to those of the gulags, but I know which one you would choose to be subjected to if you had to. I agree that a lot about our country needs to be improved, but I will also assert that the movement towards dependence on the government is what has been the driving force behind most of our problems.

alot of your problems is because the govt is absent and the market hasnt filled the void

everyone is saying they are guilty so they get a lesser sentence, even when theyre innocent. the ones who demand a jury are made an example out of when they are given long sentences. if everyone asked for a jury, the system would breakdown, its not designed to give everyone a jury.

 

[rickyb]

canada needs to start war and export democracy :


Michael Tracey
@mtracey
·
13h
Warren campaign admits that their goal is to steal the nomination from Bernie through corrupt deals at the convention. But remember, it was a grave moral crisis when some Bernie supporters online tweeted animal emojis
Quote Tweet

Shane Goldmacher
@ShaneGoldmacher
· 16h
NEW: In memo, Elizabeth Warren campaign manager @RogerLau basically admits the Warren candidacy is now a convention effort. “no candidate will likely have a path to the majority of delegates” “Milwaukee is the final play.” “ultimately prevail at the national convention”
Show this thread