What freedoms are Democrats trying to take away? The freedom to dump mine tailings in creeks? That's the one that I can think of.
--- Frank C. Wimberly 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, Santa Fe, NM 87505 505 670-9918 Santa Fe, NM On Sat, Aug 22, 2020, 4:41 PM Eric Charles <eric.phillip.char...@gmail.com> wrote: > David, > That might have been true at some point, it is not any more. At this point > they have different oligarchs they would prefer to control us, and those > oligarchs have different aspects of our lives that they want to control. > Neither major party has any interest in net-increasing personal liberty. > The Bush II years saw HUGE decreases in freedom, and a huge uptick in > Orwellian messaging (do you remember the "free speech zones"!?! Where Bush > would protect your right to speech, but only if you stood in a fenced off > cage while you were talking?). Trump certainly hasn't helped. Did Bush I? > What regime of Republican control are you trying to reference? McConnell > stopped Obama from doing lots of things, but all evidence is (based on his > behavior and his overt speech) that his goal was to stonewall Obama, not to > fight for our freedom. Plus, a huge chunk of the Republican Party (as it is > today) would happily restrict our freedoms in line with the dogma of their > particular brand of Christianity. > > I mean, you can't be pushing for net freedom if you think a baker should > be free to refuse bake a cake for a gay couple, but also think that being a > gay couple should be criminal. > > Now, maybe you are more annoyed about the freedoms that the Democrats are > trying to take away than the freedoms the Republicans are trying to take > away. I know many people who feel that way, and I know many who feel the > opposite way.... but that doesn't make either one actually pro-freedom. > > > On Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 2:21 PM Prof David West <profw...@fastmail.fm> > wrote: > >> Eric C. wrote: >> >> *"A liberal is someone who is striving to increase liberty (for whatever >> reason). An authoritarian is striving to give control to a small central >> group or individual (for whatever reason)."* >> >> Around here, your observation would be 180 degrees opposite. >> >> A liberal (read Democrat) is someone who is striving to increase control >> by a small central group (by reasons of the fact that they are smarter and >> more enlightened than everyone else and only centralized government works) >> A conservative [substituted because I think your use of authoritarian >> violated the orthogonality you correctly noted.] (read Reupublican) is >> someone who is striving to increase individual liberty and freedom from >> intervention (by reason of seeing themselves as adults capable of making >> their own decisions.) >> >> davew >> >> >> >> >> On Sat, Aug 22, 2020, at 9:03 AM, Eric Charles wrote: >> >> Liberal; was, "laissez-faire, free market"; is now, "humanist, socialist". >> >> Conservative: was "royalist, authoritarian; is now, "fascist, >> oligarchic." >> >> >> It is worse than that. At this point they don't mean anything so clear as >> what your quote implies. >> >> Circa the French and American revolutions, the royalists were correctly >> labeled as conservatives, because authoritarian-government was what they >> had already, and the liberals were progressive, because they thought a >> world with more freedom would be a better world. So a bunch of the terms >> became conflated by historic accident. >> >> It *should *be that there is a spectrum from libral to authoritarian, >> and an orthagonal scale from progressive to conservative. >> >> >> A liberal is someone who is striving to increase liberty (for whatever >> reason). An authoritarian is striving to give control to a small central >> group or individual (for whatever reason). >> >> A progressive is striving towards some future state (gambling with the >> current state in the belief there are better states coming). A conservative >> is striving to maintain the current state (leering of risking what we have, >> because what comes next might be worse). >> >> It should, therefore, be possible to be a libreal conservative, a liberal >> progressive, an authoritarian conservative, or an authoritarian >> progressive, depending on what the current state is, and whether you want >> to keep it or move on from it. >> >> If we had people on some sort of normal distribution of people in those >> perspectives, with all of them coming to the town square, they could act as >> checks and balances on each other. Society-as-a-whole could be most >> conservative about the things that most needed conserving, while being the >> most progressive about the things that most needed progressing. Similarly, >> we could be delicate and precise in our restrictions of freedoms. THAT is >> the means by which democracy adds value as a means of governing (see Dewey, >> Oliver Wendell Holmes, and other pragmatist political philosophers). That >> democracy is sometimes implemented as "50% + 1 can do whatever they want" >> is a different matter entirely, which is why (as brought up in FRIAM this >> week), "the tyranny of the majority" was a big topic of discussion at >> various points in the past. >> >> The conflation of the crucial political terms has made it >> extremely difficult to have certain types of political conversations in the >> U.S. For example, the cake-baking controversy: >> >> - Some people think that forcing someone to bake a cake for an event >> they don't want to support is a "liberal" stance. That's crazy. The >> liberal >> stance would be to let the bakers do what they want. Telling them they >> have >> to bake the cake *because *a world in which they bake the cake is a >> better world, is a progressive-authoritarian stance. (It might be the >> right >> thing to do, it might be the wrong thing to do; our inability to describe >> the stances sensibly interferes with our ability to reach consensus on >> the issue.) Our "liberals" aren't trying to make us freer, they are trying >> to dictate from a seat of power; their efforts are authoritarian. >> - Other people think it would be a better world if the baker could >> refuse to make cakes much more broadly. For example, that it would be >> better if the bakers could refuse to bake cakes for interracial couples, >> or >> for a couple being married by a heathen religion. That isn't conservative >> at all! It isn't a respect for the hard-fought gains of the past and a >> reticence to risk losing those gains. >> >> Uhg! >> >> (Yes, yes, many of those so-called conservatives imagine that the >> "better state" they seek has already existed in some mythic past, but that >> is a different issue all together; our liberal-progressive founders were >> inspired by stories of ancient Greece and Rome, but they weren't trying to >> conserve ancient Greece.) >> >> Some other examples: >> >> - We have had Social Security in the U.S. for almost 100 years. At >> this point, it is a thing achieved in the distant past. Wanting to change >> social security *is* progressive, and efforts to ensure social >> security can continue as it is indefinitely *are *conservative. >> - At this point we have had a schizophrenic web of social-safety-net >> and wealth-redistribution programs for decades (from social security and >> food stamps to Pell grants, child tax credits, and first-time homebuyer >> programs). Each program has its own requirements, and its own hoops to >> jump >> through, and it could easily become a full time job just trying to get all >> the benefits one is entitled to. In the face of that, one could easily be >> a >> liberal-progressive arguing for Universal Basic Income, *if* you were >> using that as a means to dismantle the existing programs and provide >> people >> more freedom regarding how they are using the cash you are giving them. >> Milton Freedman argued in favor of UBI for that reason, but it is hard for >> most people to imagine that, because "wasn't he a conservative?" In >> contrast, one could also argue for UBI from an authoritarian position, if >> you can only think of the effort as coupled with a big tax increase, >> because your main motivation is to use government power to force more of >> rich people's money to be given to poor people. The latter is, in >> comparison to the Freedman version, much closer to the midline of the >> progressive-conservative spectrum. >> >> Uhg all around! >> >> When Libertarians complain (not as often now as in decades past) the two >> major parties are "basically the same" (not as true now as in past >> decades), they mean to point out that both parties are heavily, Heavily, >> authoritarian. Both parties flood power to the Presidency that shouldn't be >> there. Both parties want to legislate and regulate how people should behave >> in a heavy handed manner, in a ridiculously wide range of situations. Both >> parties are an inconsistent and contradictory mix of progressivism and >> conservatism, depending on the issue. Etc. See, for example, Pelosi tearing >> up the state of the union speech while working to nigh-simultaneously to >> ensuring the renewal of the Patriot Act and FISA, and worse, ensuring that >> it happened without any of the bi-partisan proposed amendments to enhance >> privacy protections. That is straight authoritarian-conservative where it >> counts, with a thin veneer of performative grandstanding. I get it Nancy, >> "Orange Man Bad!", but, like, would it be that hard to to support even a >> shred of actually liberal efforts while you are shouting that from the >> rafters?!? >> >> Sure, some of the things democrats want to dictate about my behavior are >> different than some of the things conservatives want to dictate... but >> those are (under more normal circumstances) small details, if you would >> consider the possibility that we could maybe go a few years without >> stripping freedoms and without funneling more unchecked power to the >> Presidency. If I stand a decent distance on the liberal side of the >> liberal-to-authoritarian spectrum, and both "major parties" stand towards >> the extreme of the authoritarian side, sharing the variation from >> authoritarian-progressive to authoritarian-conservative with a heavy amount >> of overlap, they look pretty similar from where I stand a lot of the time. >> >> Of course, there is a difference, and I have a preference, and there is a >> lot more pressure to vote that preference this cycle than in more normal >> cycles... but that is a different issue. >> <echar...@american.edu> >> >> >> On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 11:22 PM <thompnicks...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> So, we add to Dave's list, as follows. >> >> Liberal; was, "laissez-faire, free market"; is now, "humanist, >> socialist". >> >> Conservative: was "royalist, authoritarian; is now, "fascist, >> oligarchic." >> >> >> Nicholas Thompson >> Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology >> Clark University >> thompnicks...@gmail.com >> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> On Behalf Of Russell Standish >> Sent: Friday, August 21, 2020 8:27 PM >> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com >> > >> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] words for Nick >> >> On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 11:24:20AM -0400, Eric Charles wrote: >> > "Awesome" is one of my favorites. Now used to indicate general >> > goodness. Not generally used in situations where one say "i was in >> awe". >> > >> > "Liberal" and "conservative" are two of my least favorite. Liberal >> > was about promoting freedom. Conservative was about retaining past >> > ways. Note that those are clearly orthogonal issues in their original >> > usage, and now we act like they are opposites, which is terrible. >> >> And just as bizarrely, in Australia they are synonyms. The Liberal party >> is >> the conservative party. >> >> >> -- >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> Dr Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) >> Principal, High Performance Coders hpco...@hpcoders.com.au >> http://www.hpcoders.com.au >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe >> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ >> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >> >> >> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam >> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ >> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >> >> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam >> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ >> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >> >> >> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam >> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ >> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >> > - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam > un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
