the proper balance between idealism and pragmatism

[Advocate]

"There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."

Universal Taxonomy - levels of kinds of power
<soft (general)>

convincing
•emotional - convince that it will make a better world
•psychological - convince that it's a good idea with common sense
•factual - insist on technical correctness

influencing
•cultural - game society
•economic - influence the direction of market choices, with sanctions for non-compliance
•bureaucratic - rig the system toward certain results

requiring
•legal - require compliance under threat of force
•physical - physical enforcement of compliance
•criminal - forced psychological change under direct supervision

preventing
•direct prevention - forced physical change or imprisonment
•removal - banishment
•existential - death

<hard (individual)>

Governments should prepare the hardest level they believe is sufficient for each particular case and then retreat toward only what is necessary :because they will always initially err on the side of control.

[Advocate]

People owning the means of production is just another way of saying "share-holding".

You don't understand the difference between "people" and "the people"?!

[Immanuel Can]

The Left is...

I'm just going to stop you right there. There is no "The Left". Group identity is bullshit.

It should be.

But unfortunately for us all, it's not...because the Left itself insists that people are defined by their group identity, not by individualism. They think you're entirely a product of, and owe your allegiance to, your culture, your "race," your skin colour, your economic group, your sexual practice group, your political party, or any one of the innumerable "group identities" they wish to attribute to you.

And they say "That's just the facts, Jack. You're a product of your group."

So your issues with the Left, not me. I'm fine with you being an individual.

[Advocate]

The Left is...

I'm just going to stop you right there. There is no "The Left". Group identity is bullshit.

It should be.

But unfortunately for us all, it's not...because the Left itself insists that people are defined by their group identity, not by individualism. They think you're entirely a product of, and owe your allegiance to, your culture, your "race," your skin colour, your economic group, your sexual practice group, your political party, or any one of the innumerable "group identities" they wish to attribute to you.

And they say "That's just the facts, Jack. You're a product of your group."

So your issues with the Left, not me. I'm fine with you being an individual.

I misspoke. It's horse shit.

[Immanuel Can]

I misspoke. It's horse shit.

Okay. But it's the Left's horse shit. Nobody else owns it. They came up with it.

[Advocate]

save yourself: support liberty

Liberty is best created in the context of a fascist over-state that controls general issues, as only an efficiently functioning government of scale can. Freedom is the freedom to do what is possible without harming the freedom of others. Government must balance those freedoms and harms. Efficiency doesn't mean sending anyone to the showers, it means eugenics (which is not inherently negative - it can be done by attrition), resource management (especially land), and delegating every authority which it is not Necessaryily controled at a high level to be effective.

[Advocate]

The problem comes back to this:

Which "ideal"?

Which "pragmatics"?

Some so-called "ideals", like, say, racial purification, world domination, prone submission to Allah, or the Worker's State, can be viewed as an "ideal" by many, and indeed have been, by many. But so what? No "balance" between that "ideal" and "pragmatics" will make either good, in such cases.

idealism v. pragmatism > being more concerned with how things could/should be v. being more concerned with how things are

[Advocate]

Have you actually eaten whale, Henry?

not yet...never thought about it till Mannie brought 'em up

Worst thing I ever ate: squid in its own ink. Unspeakable. Close second: pickled jellyfish. Tastes like slices of thin plastic.

But I hear that Icelandic rotting fish has them all beaten by a long stroke. Me, I'll never find out.

Surprise of the sea: smoked stingray. Quite delicious. Comparable to a union of fresh scallops and smoked salmon. Highly recommended.

I’ve eaten the Icelandic shark meat you mentioned. Icelanders claim that shark is poisonous to all peoples of the world except Icelanders. They say it is prepared by burying it on a sandy beach for a year. They mark the spot where it’s buried with a sign with the letters WC on it. It’s important to use those letters in order for the shark to reach its full flavor potential

OK, that's the pragmatic side, now what's the idealist side?

[Advocate]

The idea of a government-provided education was never part of American thinking until Horace Mann learned it from the Prussians and brought to this country. That idea of education was to make "useful citizens," for the state. It was never about providing individuals with the ability to think for themselves and be free, productive individuals.

It is understandable why socialists and collectivists despise the home school movement in this country, because it proves the lie that education requires the government to provide it. With regard to so-called, "educators," who's income is provided by money extorted from others, Shaw was right, "Those who can, do; those who can't, teach."

I think you misunderestimate the good intentions of early founders of stuff, they just had incredibly incomplete concepts at the time. But education today, for certain, is different. Academic credentials prove compliance, indicate knowledge, and say nothing at all about understanding.

[Advocate]

First of all, I have no idea what you call, "education," but if it is what is provided in most government schools, it amounts to brain washing and indoctrination that most children would be better off without. Secondly, I do not understand why you are for denying people the money they have earned by taking it away from them to give to others who have not earned it. Thirdly, no one I know of wants to deprive anyone of anything right. I do not think it is right to steal from others and I do not think it is right to receive stolen goods. Finally, there is no reason anyone has to be denied an education, and anyone who truly wants to learn anything can, especially today with almost limitless resources.

I really do not think you are interested in people's, "education." You want to force people to learn (or at least have crammed into their heads) what you want them to think and believe, whether they want that education or not. The reason you claim to worry about the education of poor rural people (which actually is an insult like racism--"poor ignorant country bumpkins" that just cannot get along without you) is you are afraid they really are educated and will not buy all your social nonsense and realize they don't need or want your government.

Government must make education available as a social good and it must require education to a level sufficient to be productive citizens. This doesn't mean government must make people go to school. Most of us, individually and as families or communities are perfectly capable of doing so on our own, and it's going to work better because it's bespoke. Power should be largely decentralized anyhow.

[Advocate]

Take the risk and opt out, or huddle in perceived safety by remaining in.

The safety isn't perceived - it's actual.

Doctors, sanitation, electricity, reliable source of food.

The price you pay for all of those comforts is all the responsibilities it comes with.

That's not how responsibility works. For one thing, you can only take responsibility for what you feel you can control. Most people are "given responsibility" with no power, so it only acts as a control mechanism, appealing to de-ontology, which is the lowest form of ethics.

Second, the price you pay, the way you present it, is utterly decoupled from what you get, which is morally absurd. We don't all benefit equally from society, not even close. Who are the moral geniuses in congress or whatever who decide these things? There are none. The balance between your place and society and what you get out of it is arbitrary as fuck because the rules are arbitrary as fuck, arbitrarily applied, and constantly fucking changing.

Responsibility is only a meaningful concept in the context of actual, meaningful knowledge and control, which rarely applies. It certainly doesn't apply in any sense to the social contract in practice today.

[Advocate]

Not shared if every individual wants to produce wealth for only himself or only himself and his family.

Every individual wants to produce wealth for only himself and only his family!

That still sounds like every individual wants the same thing.

Everyone wants sufficiency of actionable certainty. If we can provide that, the rest will fall in line. (to believe their actions will result in the effects they anticipate - requiring stability and legitimate governance)

[Advocate]

Like it or not we have to be governed by rule of law and to my mind politicians are better than kings or war lords. The thing is to try to inform myself which politicians are honest and intelligent and which are not, and vote accordingly.

Participation is perpetuation. You cannot fix a broken system with its own broken tools. If you choose the lesser of two evils, you're still choosing evil. Only those who do not vote have a right to complain.

[Advocate]

bein' free is man's natural state, to self-direct & be self-responsible

Was it Hobbes or was it Rousseau who claimed just that? I cannot remember.

Rousseau, Nietzsche, and Max Stirner all taught variations of naturalistic egoism. G.B. Shaw's, "Man and Superman," is an interpretation of that philosophy.

I do not think Henry means the same thing by, "man's natural state," as they did, however.

Hobbes' view of man's natural state was, "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."

To go off on more ethical tangent - in order to eliminate suffering we must eliminate nature.

[Advocate]

Sadly, recent news is filled with more innocents being shot or harmed by the police than are being protected by them. I know it's anecdotal, but it does illustrate your point, Henry.

yep, we live in interestin' times (wasn't that an old arab curse? may you live in interesting times)

Spuriously attributed to the Chinese. Called the, "Chinese curse," which no Chinese ever heard of.
Nevertheless it surely fits our times and I'm sure there are many Muslims who'd be glad to take credit for it. (Arabs are actually nice people. Many are Christians and most of the Arabs in the United States are not Muslims, and most of the Muslims in the world are not Arabs.)

It's definitely a Yiddish curse, unless it's not. I think it's a human curse, personally.