Donald Trump

[tede02]

http://cdn.meme.am/instances/500x/66321863.jpg

 

I got a kick out of this one... ;D

[cwericb]

"The US won 2 world wars in the 20th century."

Don't you mean "The US helped win 2 world wars?"

[LC]

And we are not arguing past each other because bail outs and progressive taxation (theft) to afford universal health care are two sides of the same coin. An intervening, corrupt, inefficient government parasite.

Social security and medicare have directly helped millions of the most vulnerable citizens stay clothed, fed, under a roof, and in good health. There are plenty of countries in the world severely lacking government intervention. They also lack things like running water and indoor plumbing but I guess that's a completely different matter.

[rkbabang]

 

I don't think I mentioned any type of "structure".  If you mean with very little to nothing being forcibly controlled and regulated by government, then probably no, not yet.  Human society is always evolving and is still evolving.  You do realize that you just gave the pro-slavery argument from the 17th century right?  A prosperous society and/or empire has never existed without slavery.  Maybe it was the industrial revolution that allowed a non-slavery society to be wealthy, or maybe a free market without slavery could have produced a wealthy society even before the mechanization of  the industrial revolution. I don't know the answer to that, but I do know that slavery was immoral regardless of the answer to that question.

Perhaps in a truly anarchist society like the one you propose, slavery would arise as the naturally strong prey on the weak. Perhaps only through the collective agreement of humans (aka politics) would the unsavory aspects of human nature be limited.

 

    I do know that using violence to control people and taxation to rob people is immoral. 

And the removal of a state is going to solve this?

 

It won't necessarily solve it, removal of the state isn't sufficient to solve it, but it is required as a first step to solve it. You can't even begin to solve a problem if it is widely viewed as not a problem.

 

And just like slavery when the public at large recognizes that it is possible to do without it, it will suddenly become common sense that of course no one has the right to use violence against their neighbor "for the common good" or because 50% of the population think it's OK.

"rights" don't exist in an anarchistic state. it only takes 1 person to think it's OK for them to do it.

 

Rights are a human invention.  You can't look under a microscope and say "there is a right".  It is the same with morality.  These things are what the vast majority think they are, nothing more.  There will always be criminals that need to be dealt with somehow.  The only question is do you legitimize these actions and call these criminals "government"?

 

  No, there has never yet been a full functioning stateless society, but I think we will eventually get there.

My question was relatively loaded because before "states" and "governments" existed, a "stateless" society existed. We lived in caves and hunted and gathered.

 

But even in those days social structure existed. Maybe it wasn't an "official state" but there was a political process and agreed upon rules. And forms of "taxation". No, the IRS didn't come after you but you sure as hell better save some of your seeds with the village otherwise you will be ostracized.

 

Before we had states humans were pretty primitive, we've evolved socially quite a bit since then.  Another way to look at it is that we have always lived in a state of anarchy and always will.  Just as there really is no such thing as morality, there is really no such thing as government.  There are only human concepts of such things, which change over time.  If you look at the whole of recorded history the concepts have trended over the long term towards greater inclusion (of races, sexes, lifestyles, classes, etc), greater individualism, more peaceful moral codes, etc.  Once some form of violence is considered immoral, or some people are included in those who should have rights, society as a whole rarely goes backwards.  People aren't likely to say, "you know we should bring back slavery and consider women to be the property of their husbands again.  And we really need to do something about the dirty jews".  It just doesn't happen. Human progress is slow, but steady.  The average person of even 75 years ago, would be considered a bigot by today's standard.  And the rate of change is increasing.    It used to take a millennium to change the dominate moral codes now, people change how they think on many issues within their own lifetimes.  This governmental system, the whole concept of the nation state, only survives because the vast majority of the people want it to.  The moment a sizable number see it as either evil or unnecessary something else will take its place.  I am not worried that slavery will come back in a society where the dominate zeitgeist is that even taxation is immoral and where voluntary solutions are always looked for over violent ones. Anarchy doesn't mean tolerating criminals to commit violence it means not tolerating gangs of people calling themselves government committing violence and claiming that it is somehow legitimate as we have now.

[coc]

People aren't likely to say, "you know we should bring back slavery and consider women to be the property of their husbands again.  And we really need to do something about the dirty jews".  It just doesn't happen. Human progress is slow, but steady. 

 

And you consider what's going on in Iraq and Syria right now to be...?

 

Human beings are capable of a wide range of things. Just because we have trended towards some sort of better morality doesn't mean we have a progressive destiny. The future isn't written yet. We're still capable of what we used to be capable of.

 

https://www.farnamstreetblog.com/2016/03/karl-popper-mistake-of-historicism/

[bookie71]

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10209093591759661&set=a.2311786316836.2135815.1314720076&type=3&theater

[LC]

Before we had states humans were pretty primitive, we've evolved socially quite a bit since then.  Another way to look at it is that we have always lived in a state of anarchy and always will.  Just as there really is no such thing as morality, there is really no such thing as government.  There are only human concepts of such things, which change over time.  If you look at the whole of recorded history the concepts have trended over the long term towards greater inclusion (of races, sexes, lifestyles, classes, etc), greater individualism, more peaceful moral codes, etc.  Once some form of violence is considered immoral, or some people are included in those who should have rights, society as a whole rarely goes backwards.  People aren't likely to say, "you know we should bring back slavery and consider women to be the property of their husbands again.  And we really need to do something about the dirty jews".  It just doesn't happen. Human progress is slow, but steady.  The average person of even 75 years ago, would be considered a bigot by today's standard.  And the rate of change is increasing.    It used to take a millennium to change the dominate moral codes now, people change how they think on many issues within their own lifetimes.  This governmental system, the whole concept of the nation state, only survives because the vast majority of the people want it to.  The moment a sizable number see it as either evil or unnecessary something else will take its place.  I am not worried that slavery will come back in a society where the dominate zeitgeist is that even taxation is immoral and where voluntary solutions are always looked for over violent ones. Anarchy doesn't mean tolerating criminals to commit violence it means not tolerating gangs of people calling themselves government committing violence and claiming that it is somehow legitimate as we have now.

So in your view:

 

Humans have always had a "concept" of government or "the state" (although there really is no such thing as these things)

This concept of "government" has waxed/waned in strength over the course of human civilization (presumably depending on humanity's "need" for it)

But this "concept" is totally useless and will eventually be seen to be unnecessary.

 

I don't quite see how A&B lead to C. Here's another interpretation

 

Perhaps this concept of government is a part of the human condition and part of the nature of human society, and will always exist in one form or another. Perhaps it is both useful in some cases (like making sure our food doesn't have lead chips in it and our old sick citizens can afford rent), and useless in other cases (like wasting resources on corrupt defense contractors or bailing out corrupt politician's bankers).

 

It's like an old grandmother. She makes sure all the kids are fed, bandaged up when they fall, and generally don't break themselves. But she still gives everyone $100 on some holidays depsite the fact that her one grandkid is kind of a dick and probably doesn't deserve it.

 

Perhaps instead of blowing up something to which all evidence points to as being entwined with human society and will never disappear, a more mature solution would be to try and limit the useless aspects and enhance the useful aspects. Don't blow up grandma.

[augustabound]

"The US won 2 world wars in the 20th century."

Don't you mean "The US helped win 2 world wars?"

 

I had the same question.

[ccplz]

I don’t like making Nazi comparisons–they’re emotionally charged and often highly unfair. But in the last few months, the things Trump has been saying are eerily reminiscent of the kinds of things that right authoritarian politicians claim when they are trying to win a democratic election for the purposes of doing away with that system. There’s a group that is demonized (immigrants and Muslims), there are draconian policies to deal with the “problem” group (the wall, the database, the ID cards, surveillance, closing mosques), the politicians who disagree are accused of ignoring reality, and ordinary folks who disagree are condemned as troublemakers or enemy sympathizers who ought to be “roughed up”.

 

Right authoritarian politicians emerge in democracies when there is a group of people who feel that the democratic system exists to take things away from them and give those things to other people. During the Obama administration, the Republican Party has consistently nurtured this belief among its supporters–that the government and the democrats want to take things from them and give this “free stuff” to “those people” (the poor, the blacks, the immigrants, the Muslims). When Mitt Romney said that his party is going up against “benjaminstudebaker.comthe 47%” who do not pay income tax, the implication is that politics is a class war between the Americans who work hard and have stuff and the Americans who are lazy and take things. The republicans were overwhelmingly confident that they were going to win in 2012. When they lost, the implication was that there are too many “useful idiots”–those willing to help the 47% take things–for the republicans to take the presidency. And while some Republicnas believe that 2016 will be different, there’s a chunk of these people for whom 2012 established more deeply than ever that the only way to stop the 47% from taking their stuff is to use all available means. On internet forums, these people contemplate armed rebellion, they stockpile gold, and they look for a great leader who can protect them from the left. This chunk of Republicans believe that their country and its values are under attack, that they themselves are going to be expropriated by a government permanently captured by socialists. Fox News, conservative talk radio, and the Republican Party itself have all deliberately fed into these fears to mobilize support for republican candidates. As time progresses, these people grow steadily more desperate and steadily more willing to do things that most of us would consider unthinkable. They believe that Donald Trump is their guy.

 

Is he? Maybe, maybe not. But he sure knows how to use them. And the trouble with using these people like this is that you cannot use them without creating more of them and without making the ones we already have more reactionary and extreme over time. The US does not have a draft anymore–the military is all-volunteer, and because much of the left disdains the armed forces, reactionaries are over-represented in the military. As time progresses and the Republican Party continues to encourage this zero sum view, they are inadvertently potentially creating a situation in which the state could be captured by right wing authoritarians, either through the election of a figure like Trump or through a military coup.

 

While folks like Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush pretend it’s 1996, the U.S. political system is devolving in dangerous and sinister ways. Donald Trump may personally turn out to be harmless, but his supporters are anything but. It probably won’t be this year or this election, but every four years these people seem to be stronger and more influential in the Republican Party. If the U.S. continues down this path, we may all live to regret it.

 

[Jurgis]

How long before the Whitehouse is renamed - Trump house. This is the most critical question.

 

If only the Democrats would nominate Biglari to run against him. That would be perfect.  USA by Biglari.

 

Could also bring a new meaning to centerfold... oh wait, that fellow Clinton already done that!  8)

[Edward]

There’s a group that is demonized (immigrants and Muslims), there are draconian policies to deal with the “problem” group (the wall, the database, the ID cards, surveillance, closing mosques)

Immigrants are not demonised. Illegal immigrants are because they are criminals, they came in illegally. Some also engage in other crime.

 

Same thing for Muslims. No problem with them, except that there is a large minority of Muslims worldwide that openly supports terrorism when asked (like a third). No reason to take any chances really, let them stay in their own countries and do whatever they like.

 

When faced with big problems, you need a corresponding solution. Doing it the nice and fuzzy way like the Europeans is a big glaring failure, so obviously something else is needed. So trump goes the extra mile here, no idea if it's too much or too little, but it's worth a shot because if it continues like it has, there will not be a USA for your grandchildren to live in. It will be more like Lebanon.

 

Now regarding the particulars.

 

The idea of a wall is just common sense. People go over the border? Build a stronger border.

 

The idea of ID cards I don't like personally, but we do have them in Israel (where I live) and it seems to be no big deal.

 

Surveillance you already have, nothing new. Patriot Act?

 

The idea of closing a Mosque sounds crazy, only because people think it's like closing a church. It's not. Islam is not like Judaism and Christianity in the sense it's not only a religion, it is also (and I would say primarily today) a political system and a legal system. So it means that a Mosque propagates an alternative holistic system that strives to replace the US law and install Sharia law, mostly "peacefully" by cultural conquest and sometimes by violence (i.e. terror). In the UK you already have Sharia courts that supersede British law. This cannot be tolerated in my opinion and it is a very good reason to close down a Mosque if that is the case.

[wachtwoord]

quote author=cwericb " data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="13672" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic" 259067#msg259067 data-ipsquote-timestamp=1458173500]

"The US won 2 world wars in the 20th century."

Don't you mean "The US helped win 2 world wars?"

 

No the US was clearly the main victor. The war wasn't on their shores at all. All the other participants lost, some more than others.

 

And we are not arguing past each other because bail outs and progressive taxation (theft) to afford universal health care are two sides of the same coin. An intervening, corrupt, inefficient government parasite.

Social security and medicare have directly helped millions of the most vulnerable citizens stay clothed, fed, under a roof, and in good health. There are plenty of countries in the world severely lacking government intervention. They also lack things like running water and indoor plumbing but I guess that's a completely different matter.

 

No single country needs government intervention. The most volnerable need to get themselves clothed or seize to be as they are not adding anything to this world. That's only natural. The weekest of the species are not meant to survive and reproduce.

 

And ccplz was that story meant as a bad future? The US desperately needs a coup (as does every country in Europe). The world has gone to shit with the rise of the socialistic facists that are in charge now.

[cwericb]

"The US won 2 world wars in the 20th century."

 

Don't you mean "The US helped win 2 world wars?"

 

“No the US was clearly the main victor. The war wasn't on their shores at all. All the other participants lost, some more than others.”

 

Well that statement simply demonstrates your lack of knowledge of history. You must have been watching far too many US war movies.  :)

 

“ All the other participants lost, some more than others.” Now that’s just funny. :) :) :)

 

PS "The war wasn't on their shores at all."  You must have missed that little incident in Pearl Harbor.

 

[wachtwoord]

You took Pearl Harbor seriously? I think you're the one that watched too many war movies. A certain one by Michael Bay in particularly.

 

Pearl Harbor was how the US got rid of their outdated fleet.

[LC]

No single country needs government intervention. The most volnerable need to get themselves clothed or seize to be as they are not adding anything to this world. That's only natural. The weekest of the species are not meant to survive and reproduce.

 

http://www.quickmeme.com/img/18/18f980390694235cc2b07901b7b32729772c80ea59afd1ece7a8b1fcc535b9b4.jpg

[Investmentacct]

We can learn one thing from Trump on what not to do. Let's make sure we don't bring out trump in ourselves while discussing about Trump.

[cwericb]

“You took Pearl Harbor seriously? I think you're the one that watched too many war movies. A certain one by Michael Bay in particularly.

 

Pearl Harbor was how the US got rid of their outdated fleet.”

 

Ooooooookay. Those who ignore history may be bound to repeat it, but those who deny history are in a whole different category.

[ourkid8]

As a practicing Muslim, I don't know what to say besides these are extremely ignorant comments and Islam teaches us peace and tolerance.  Are there bad apples among us, sure. and just to reiterate no practicing muslim who follows our prophet would EVER condones any of the terrible attacks. (You should spent 10 minutes to read about his life and see how peaceful and humble he was and try to focus on the jews who lived in Madina (Yatrib) in harmony and respect)  How come no one comments on the following non-islamic groups such as FARC, RIRA, NPA, Zionism, KKK etc who spread hatred around the world?

 

-Muslim population is 1.3-1.7B world wide so 300-500m of us support terrorism? Are you kidding me?  I personally don't know 1 Muslim individual who supports any kind of terrorism.

-Islam is truly a continuation of Christianity / Judaism and we all follow almost the exact same principles.  Islam never propagates an alternative to US law to instill sharia law.  I think you need to stop watching the media and learn the truth

-Stay in our own country, what Canada/US?

 

I'll stop here but these ignorant comments must be stopped.  Seeing where your from, pretty much explains your comments and shows your ignorance - not surprised!  Sanjeev, would you please stop/warn Edward for these hateful comments. 

 

Same thing for Muslims. No problem with them, except that there is a large minority of Muslims worldwide that openly supports terrorism when asked (like a third). No reason to take any chances really, let them stay in their own countries and do whatever they like.

 

The idea of closing a Mosque sounds crazy, only because people think it's like closing a church. It's not. Islam is not like Judaism and Christianity in the sense it's not only a religion, it is also (and I would say primarily today) a political system and a legal system. So it means that a Mosque propagates an alternative holistic system that strives to replace the US law and install Sharia law, mostly "peacefully" by cultural conquest and sometimes by violence (i.e. terror). In the UK you already have Sharia courts that supersede British law. This cannot be tolerated in my opinion and it is a very good reason to close down a Mosque if that is the case.

[wisdom]

Some of the stuff I see is scary because you expect more rational and educated individuals on this board. If this is how the rational and educated think, it scares me to think what the rest of the population would be like.

 

I guess it is difficult for individuals to be open and far easier to fall back to behaving like apes.

 

Ignorance is the reason why history repeats.

 

And the idea that anyone knows the absolute truth is pure garbage. It is OK to allow for others viewpoints.

[merkhet]

I feel like I have made this argument to many of my friends on both sides of the aisle who are flummoxed by the rise of Trump.

 

People keep saying that they don't understand how anyone could logically support Trump.

 

Except that's just the thing. People aren't logically supporting Trump. Logic has nothing to do with it. Trump is a masterful emotional manipulator. He's hijacking people's System 1 and using that to just completely bypass people's System 2. It's why rational people outside of his vortex look at his supporters and think, "wtf?"

[meiroy]

People, as in "we the people" are not rational to begin with and even less so when it comes to religion and politics.

 

Having said that, there are issues that bubble under the surface, ignored or refused to be dealt with by the establishment.  Once it gets to a boiling point for whichever reason extremists like Trump use it for a ride.  The powers that be have to recognize the various issues involved and take control of the discussion.

 

The pendulum swings...

 

 

 

 

[Brett]

I feel like I have made this argument to many of my friends on both sides of the aisle who are flummoxed by the rise of Trump.

 

People keep saying that they don't understand how anyone could logically support Trump.

 

Except that's just the thing. People aren't logically supporting Trump. Logic has nothing to do with it. Trump is a masterful emotional manipulator. He's hijacking people's System 1 and using that to just completely bypass people's System 2. It's why rational people outside of his vortex look at his supporters and think, "wtf?"

 

Well said. The vast majority of people don't vote rationally. Trump's taking advantage of this.

 

Also, the discussions on Trump's wealth vs. what it would be if he invested in the S&P ignores that he's lived like a king for most of his adult life. He's supported multiple wives, five kids, etc. I don't know how you properly account for that. I think he deserves quite a bit of credit for his business career.

[DTEJD1997]

I feel like I have made this argument to many of my friends on both sides of the aisle who are flummoxed by the rise of Trump.

 

People keep saying that they don't understand how anyone could logically support Trump.

 

Except that's just the thing. People aren't logically supporting Trump. Logic has nothing to do with it. Trump is a masterful emotional manipulator. He's hijacking people's System 1 and using that to just completely bypass people's System 2. It's why rational people outside of his vortex look at his supporters and think, "wtf?"

 

Well said. The vast majority of people don't vote rationally. Trump's taking advantage of this.

 

Also, the discussions on Trump's wealth vs. what it would be if he invested in the S&P ignores that he's lived like a king for most of his adult life. He's supported multiple wives, five kids, etc. I don't know how you properly account for that. I think he deserves quite a bit of credit for his business career.

 

People don't vote rationally?  Maybe...

 

But does is it such a STRETCH to think some people are fed-up with the system?  That a lot of people are angry with the direction the country is going?  That a lot of people remember the Clinton's first time in office and don't want a replay of that?

 

Is it outside the bounds of comprehension that some people do not want Hillary in charge, no matter what?  That Trump, while not a perfect candidate, offers a chance?  That faced with the prospect of Hillary that they are willing to give Trump a chance?

[rkbabang]

Edit: Hillary actually has the most votes of any candidate on a per basis but we just talk about Trump....like hes the most popular...hes not.

 

OK let's talk about her then.

 

[rkbabang]

I always hate when people compare to others like that......you sit there and bitch about politicians but i dont see you out there trying to change things...Its almost as if you feel this is your contribution...to bitch....at least Hillary(any politician ) has the stones to enter the maelstrom. If you dont like the candidate then get out there and try to become one.

 

And I get it. I'm a coward...I'd rather stick my head down and be in my accounting book...and go to the gym and maybe have time to spend with a high schooler teaching hi/her mathematics then enter the politics....but if you should really try to change the world instead of just bitching about it......id does no one good and doesnt help change the situation.

 

People act like voting is the most important thing they can do to change the world....news for you anyone can vote...its not that hard. Actually doing something...like sitting down and teaching is much harder.....

 

That's like saying if you don't like how slaves are treated buy some and treat them well.  I don't want to contribute in any way to a system of violence, theft, domination, and destruction.    I do just want to get people to see it for what it is.  I don't want to try to be your master just because I don't want her or Trump to be mine.