The Smiley Smile Message Board

Hey look, it's me! The Captain! Luther! f*** yeah! This is another stupid thread that is the sort of thing I find endlessly fascinating. Anyone with even close to a fraction of similar interest may wish to participate. Here we go--this is the thread. Like, starting ... NOW.

Some people are born and raised into a political viewpoint. Many evolve over time, maybe through formal education, maybe through the education of real life, maybe (hopefully?) both. It's pretty obvious roughly where many people who participate in the assorted political threads place themselves, issues-wise. It's somewhat clear in many cases where they fall, philosophy-wise. What I wonder is, how did you all get to where you are? If you're so inclined, I'm really interested to hear about where you've been, how you've evolved, why, when, and so on.

If I may have some thread-starter's privilege, I'd ask that you keep the sermonizing to a bare minimum (ideally zero). I encourage Q&A for anyone comfortable with such a thing, but keep that nice and respectful, too. Maybe start from the idea that nobody's political philosophy is based evil, for example--that everyone has good intentions, even if [you think] they're mistaken in their approach.

I'm going to get good and drunk right now, but hopefully someone else will pick up the ball and run with it. Tell your political stories. I'll check back a little later and tell a most likely incoherent version of my own little uninteresting story. (I know, you'd think if I wanted this thread, I'd have some fabulous story. But I don't. Not at all. But I'm seriously interested in yours, even if you think it's dull.)

I remember hearing a news story come over the radio when I was younger and riding in the car with my Midwestern father. It was about a pill that could be taken to prevent HIV/AIDS. I saw this as a positive: it could save thousands of lives and prevent against incredible amounts of suffering for potential HIV/AIDS patients. My father, however, viewed this as something that would enable homosexual men to continue to have unprotected sex, and therefore as something that would not be positive. I made a point to say that not only homosexuals that are susceptible to the disease, but that didn't seem to have any effect. I remember not being able to understand how he could possibly have this idea... one so different than mine--the opposite, really. He identifies as an "independent," but he listens to conservative news radio programs and watches Fox News. Whenever I see him, I'm always confronted with these voices that I never agree with. I think most of my political views are defined by my continual disagreeing with my father and his views. Sometimes, in the Sandbox, I feel like I'm arguing with him.

First, I grew up in a time and place when and where the norm--not the exception--was the most virulent expression of what Bubbly Waves describes as coming from his father. Add the most hateful versions of that kind of thought, and that was, like, Tuesday at school. That's how people talked. All the time. Moderates were "OK with queers, as long as they don't try anything on me." This was then, there.

But more directly on topic: I have nothing definitive to add to this thread that I started (and am hoping to read more in). I really feel like--maybe 15 years into my increasing political interest and consciousness--I'm just beginning to learn about the history of political philosophies. Maybe one of the biggest awakenings for me has been the separation of American cliches and reality. Republicans don't have sh*t to do with conservatism, Democrats don't have sh*t to do with liberalism, and while the parties may be two sides of the same coin, the economy has a more diverse currency than that one coin. As I keep thinking, I also separate political philosophy from actual positions on issues, as it seems to me the former is mostly a way of thinking through a problem, not the outcome itself. I also increasingly separate positions from the political process: one can be extremist but believe in or at least accept compromise as an outcome.

Hopefully I'll think of something more interesting to say as others post.

Essay question. But entertaining. Will contribute demain.

This is something that has always confused me. Where do democrats end and where do liberals begin? Same for republicans and conservatives. Are they different political parties? Why are they always grouped together as liberal=democrats and conservatives=republicans. Are there differences? The words seem to be used interchangeably. If there are liberal republicans, why do you never hear about them? Why does each side lean towards one or the other? It seems the parties are called Democratic or Republican, but individuals are called liberals or conservatives. Has it always been this way? When was the shift towards this new way of categorizing? Why did it happen?

That's probably a lot of questions (and I have even more), but it really is something I don't fully understand.

Well, I define liberalism much in the same way it was defined back in the colonial era - free markets, individual liberty, limited government, maximum freedom for maximum people. Sadly, a century ago, the enemies of liberalism co-opted the term and distorted it to describe themselves. Hence why classical liberals identify as libertarians (or, in my case, as a free market anarchist).

As far as the political party situation goes, both parties end up becoming ideological melting pots; people who tend more "liberal" in the modern sense end up being Democrats and those who tend more "conservative" end up being Republicans. Part of that has to do with the lack of viable third parties in this country. A third-party candidate is seen either as a spoiler or a "wasted vote." Granted, it's not 100% black or white and there are always anomalies - you get guys like Ron Paul who was more fiscally conservative and socially libertarian than nearly all of his fellow Republicans or guys like Bernie Sanders, who is more fiscally liberal and socially libertarian than nearly all of his fellow Democrats. It's just one of those things. It's hard to explain in a few sentences.

Bubbly Waves -- really good questions, and actually exactly the sorts of questions I started having after college (because nobody covered such things in my formal schooling, maybe because I didn't take courses in political science or political history, maybe because our education system is questionable). It's endlessly fascinating stuff, too.

TRBB did a good job summarizing it, really, but I do have more I want to say about it. Alas, I'm off to work. When I get home today, if the points haven't been covered by then, I'll write more.

Well, I grew up in a family of Labor supporters, who in every election voted for the Labor Party. I didn't really care much about Politics until relatively recently, and it really wasn't until around last year that I began to develop an interest for it. At first, I didn't hold a firm position, at different times supporting right wing and left wing views. Lately, I've drifted firmly towards the left, as I found that I generally hold left-wing views. I've always been a staunch anti-communist though, as well as the extreme right (really, both far left and far right aren't any good at all, to put it mildly). Two of my greatest political admirers are Gough Whitlam and Paul Keating, the former for reforming the Labor Party and completely changing and modernising Australia in the (slightly less than) three years he was in power; and the latter for his political integrity, the long-term benefits of his work as Treasurer, and of course for his wit and devastating insults. These days, I very much enjoy studying about political history - on both sides of the political spectrum.

The older I get, the more I realize that neither party is 100% right.  If you ask me, the two party system is broken. 

When Obama was first elected in 2008, he preached bipartisanship and both parties working together.  But, all he's done is create a wider divide between the two parties, and set race relations back 50+ years. 

Obama is the result of a feels-based electorate wanting "not another Dubya" and what they got was Dubya on steroids.

One of the biggest dangers (and sadly omnipresent realities) of democracy.

As I said this morning, I want to try to address some of these questions, in large part because I've in recent years...or decades (as I became interested enough to look into such things) wondered the same. I'm sure some people here--The Real Beach Boy, to name one, who really seems to know his political history--can supplement or correct what I say.

Before anything else, I think we need to understand that political parties don't necessarily correlate to political philosophies. Yes, at any given time, a party leans toward a philosophy. And yes, the parties are often happy to use philosophies as credentials for themselves (Romney's "I'm a severe conservative") or an insult ("liberal" from the late '80s until ... well, Elizabeth Warren? That word was not widely used, and frankly still is not widely used.). Political parties are, in my opinion, something not entirely unlike a mafia. They are organizations that absolutely may do good things, but the point of their existence is furthering their existence. Their members are expected to further the existence of the party. Sure, the party has a platform ... and it's based on raising funds for and continuing the power of the party. A quick perusal of stories on the reality of our elected officials and the amount of time they spend fundraising--for themselves and for their party--says it all.

Now, let's talk about some key political philosophies. I'm going to use the book "Political Ideologies: An Introduction," by Andrew Heywood, for this. (Quotes, unless noted otherwise, are from that.) And before I give details, let's be clear: (as TRBB said) some of these terms have changed their popular meanings. I personally go back and forth between trying to stick with the original meaning, and going with the modern understanding. I'll just try to explain things here, and we can go from there.

Liberalism. By the early-mid 1800s, this term meant "a commitment to the individual and the desire to construct a society in which people can satisfy their interests and achieve fulfillment." I think everyone here would agree that Western civilization is overwhelmingly--for centuries now--the product of that sort of "classical" liberalism. It is based on individuals' rights to pursue their own interests without government intervention.

Conservatism. Core themes include exactly what the word itself says: conserving (what is). Respecting traditions, understanding the complexity of society and hesitating to make drastic changes because of the potential for unintended consequences, a belief in hierarchy and authority, and respect for property rights.

Let's stop there: does any of that sound familiar to you, as you think about Republicans and Democrats? Maybe. There are hints and shadows. But as you'd guess, things have changed.

Through the 19th century, a segment of liberals began thinking that classical liberalism left the less fortunate behind. T.H. Green (1836-82) proposed that "negative freedom acknowledges only legal and physical constraints on liberty, [but] positive freedom recognizes that liberty may also be threatened by social disadvantage and liberty." A further step--social liberalism--built on that idea, that government could help create an equality of opportunity, through the modern welfare state. We get into Progressivism here.

In the 20th century, conservatism birthed factions of neoliberalism (classical liberals, basically, like libertarians) and neoconservatives (more traditional conservatives emphasizing order, authority, discipline).

A few other "isms" we hear about from time to time, though less than the above. In all cases, both above and below, keep in mind that we debate constantly what counts as rock n roll, what is the boundary of some other genre. The same thing applies here. Nobody agrees on what exactly any designation means, or at least where the boundaries are.

Capitalism: a system where wealth is owned by private individuals and goods are produced for exchange according to dictates of the market.

Communism: system of common ownership of wealth, comprehensive collectivization.

Social democracy: brand of socialism balancing the market and the state (rather than abolition of capitalism)

Socialism: opposes capitalism, viewing humans as social creatures, preferring cooperation to competition, and emphasizing equality.

This is all just quick summary, and I hope nobody takes it TOO seriously. Read up. But the point is, you can get a basic idea of these philosophies and realize nobody mentioned abortion, the armed forces, homosexuality, taxes, guns, schools, unions... Political philosophies are ways of thinking, not talking points.

Throughout history, the current major parties have had leanings that go all over the place. You had conservative Democrats (and still do, in a sense, especially in the South--or even with Jim Webb, who just left the Democratic primary). You had liberal Republicans, often known as "Rockefeller Republicans" in the 20th century. There is a myth that Democrats are liberal and Republicans are conservative, but it is, and always has been, a myth.

Most of what the parties blabber about is nonsense. But it isn't (modern/progressive) liberal and conservative down the line. It just isn't. And maybe more importantly, there are many other ideas beyond those two the parties babble about. Political ideas have more than two dimensions. It's an artificial system we have that pretends two parties are the two philosophies.

This rambled. I took forever. I ate dinner. Whatever I got wrong, I hope someone corrects or supplements. But I do hope that helps answer your questions, Bubbly Waves. Or at least raise new ones.

I grew up in a house where you didn't vote straight ticket, you voted for whomever you thought would do the best job.

As a teen, I hated Republicans. Mostly for 2 reasons; the Gulf War, and the fact that in the early 80's (I'm 40, so I was just a little kid then) I was scared to death of being in a nuclear war with Russia. As I got into my teens, I came to the conclusion that Ronald Reagan was to blame for that, because he was president in the early 80's. Now, I'm not here to discuss whether or not that line of thinking was right or wrong, I'm just speaking from the mindset of a 16 year old kid.

Anymore, I'm confused. There's one part of me that, as I get older, my views seem to get a bit more conservative. At the same time, there are many things that I feel liberalism has to offer. The bottom line is, I still try to go with who I think would do the best job. The problem is, there isn't anyone.

As a side note, Captain; sad stuff about Flip. He came to Detroit and did a pretty good job. Always seemed like a stand up guy.

Conservatism is doing what is right -- cuz Conservatives believe people know what is right.  Doesn't mean they always do right.  Half the class usually walks out right there...  But it's true.  A lot of people call themselves Conservatives, but they tend to be Politicians.  But it's about doing what is right.  What else could have guided the founders to arrive at the US Constitution but a desire to do right, just as one example of what I mean.  Nothing about the goals of the founders was to do wrong.

Regarding government-systems -- Conservatives feel the debate was already properly had.  See:  Constitution.  The only thing left is to make sure it is applied to everybody -- consistently, all the time.  And that's the battle.  Consistently and all the time.

Power lies with the people. People will decide (eventually) to do the right thing.  And power trickles up from there.  By the time you get to the top of the pyramid... the Feds should only concern themselves with making sure no one usurps this process.  Defend the nation from enemies foreign and domestic.  And an enemy is anybody who is afraid of the process of letting the people decide.

There are exceptions and they are a common morality.


Liberals believe they know what is right and they do not give a damn about the process.  Liberals do not listen, and everyone will just have to shut up or get their mind right.  They are not classical liberals... they're classical Progressives.  And there's no progress on the menu.  Progress is only defined as progressing towards their goals and world-view.  And their goals and world-view always seem to have an element of "purity" in them.  Purity (as defined by them) is the theme you'll find if you look deeply enough at what Liberals (actually Progressives) want to achieve.  Give me a Leftist cause -- and I'll show you its Progressive Goal of Purity.

True liberalism -- as in:  freedom and liberty, live-your-life, do-want-you-want-to-do, or creating communities of shared beliefs (utopias) -- that can only be found within what Conservatives believe.  Power is with the people, that's the process.  States decide over the Fed. Counties, then towns, reign over them.  And finally... family units and the individual reign the most supreme in deciding what is right for them.  There can and should be exceptions, but very few, as mentioned.



None of what I wrote is being taught, by the way.  As is often the case, the opposite is taught:  Conservatives are haters and Liberals are lovers.  That's the meme.  You know it and I know it.  But everything I said is true regardless of that meme.  And nothing will change that.

As for political parties, meh.  Don't waste the ink.

Edit: for courtesy. Instead:

Verlander -- sad news about Flip, indeed. He wasn't exactly a legend around here, but he certainly was a respected figure in the basketball community. An Ohio kid, but he's lived here at least part time since his freshman year of college, back in the '70s. And by all accounts, just a good guy. I worry about how it affects the Wolves, but then I feel bad even putting that spin on it.

Regarding your political origins, interesting stuff.

This is garbage.

Hope some of the info I posted was helpful to your questions, Bubbly Waves.

(By the way, I struggle not to write "Bubbs," at which point I hear the voice of the character Ricky talking to Bubbles from Trailer Park Boys.)

Can we have a trailer park boys thread? :p

Presumably it's possible.

Yeah, you and TRBB were both helpful.
I still have questions, of course, but I'll do some looking into it on my own.

Great. And definitely look into it on your own.

You are making a good point here. I think a crucial point to keep in mind is that political philosophies have a way of being co-opted by powerful people in order to serve another kind of ideological purpose. So, for example, the Soviets used the terms communism even though the system was structured more like state capitalism, basically the same kind of economic system that predominates throughout the world now except with its own uniquely horrific tyrannical twist. The Bolsheviks were largely opposed by the mainstream Marxists at the time whom Lenin openly despised precisely because they were not adhering to traditional communist policies and in fact once a certain amount of time passed, Lenin openly and correctly referred to the Soviet economic structure as state capitalism. But the term "communism" had a particularly powerful meaning throughout Europe in the early 20th Century. The term was associated with positive and benevolent actions and so the Leninists and eventually the Stalinists co-opted the term in order to get the public to support their atrocious policies.

In a similar sense, the United States now uses the term market capitalism in order to get the public to support a system that is anything but free market. I might suggest too that in the United States the term libertarian has been emptied of its real meaning that derived from its long time association with left wing anarchism once it was taken over by a particular set of far right intellectual elites.

So with all of this, it doesn't surprise me how people end up being thoroughly confused about these terms.

Thank you.

I wrote a wistful song once about how politically optimistic I felt as a youngster circa 1989-1997.

https://iancockburnandthewholeworld.bandcamp.com/track/i-thought-we-had-it-good (https://iancockburnandthewholeworld.bandcamp.com/track/i-thought-we-had-it-good)

My political background is muddy. My parents were along the lines of what Mr. Verlander said: not voting based on party, but on individual cases. That said, they were (are) conservative mainstream-denomination LUTHERans (get it?), and abortion was and remains a huge deal to them, so they voted largely Republican. Still, they instilled in me a significant distrust of politics in general. “Absolute power corrupts absolutely” and all that.

As I came of age, I leaned Democrat mostly because it seemed weird to vote for Bob Dole, more or less. I still remember watching a debate where he plugged his website. It was so, so awkward. I wasn’t sure he knew what a website was. (I’ve since watched enough interviews with Sen. Dole that I respect the hell out of him, whatever disagreements I have with him. He’s one of the multitude of former Republican leaders who could no longer hold office in his own party.)

Time passes, I keep voting mostly Democrat because they seem less concerned about what people do in their bedrooms, slightly less likely to start wars, slightly less interested in ensuring Christianity is embedded in our nation’s institutions, and slightly less nationalistic-xenophobic.

But let’s be clear: I think the Democratic party sucks. Really, really, really sucks. It just sucks slightly less than the Republican party. (Though that “slightly” is now “increasingly” due to the Republicans’ flirtations with absolutism rather than the compromises essential to governance.)

So is Luther—hating both parties--the “party of no?” Not quite.

The narrative now is that we have “liberals,” which are synonymous to Democrats, progressives, and--depending on who you ask--socialists, communists, blah blah gay agenda muslims sharia politically correct atheists tree-huggers insert purported slur here; and “conservatives,” who are synonymous with Republicans, Christians, businesspeople, blah blah values-voters hicks southerners corporations polluters warmongers insert purported slur here.

My overriding point in all things political is that there are not two diametrically opposed sides. There are myriad "sides," and they aren't just all-or-nothing blocs. There are principles, and there are leanings, and there are issues, and these things are fluid to a point. I don’t like “isms” because they are artificial constructs to explain an inexplicable reality.

But … I have a lot of respect for classical liberalism, including the underlying assumptions of personal responsibility (which is often considered a conservative idea now, though I don't think that's accurate). Yet my “classical liberalism” also leaves significant room for a) a belief in the possible good of the state, and b) compassion toward those whose circumstances make impossible or disproportionately unlikely the positive outcomes of liberalism.

I do not believe equality of opportunity is quite achievable, but I think it’s an admirable … direction … for the government, where feasible. I do not believe equality of outcome is either achievable or worth pursuing.

I believe institutional discrimination (or favor, discrimination’s flip side) is wrong. Rights are rights; what is given to one must be given to all. The caveat is the weak and the oppressed: they should be afforded extra protection because they need it. And once they don’t, they shouldn’t.

I believe in compromise. Not necessarily of your beliefs, but in moving forward. This country was, at its founding, one of almost violently diverse opinions as to how it should operate. This has not become less the case as it has grown to 300 million-plus people. Standing firm to an ideology that is not a majority and insisting things go your way is sheer stupidity. The “marketplace” crowd would say if your idea is good, it should be adopted eventually. The practical one would say, don’t be stupid: it’s a big world. Obviously you’re not going to get your way all the time.

I believe foreign policy might be beyond me. The balance of advancing what seem to be noble ideas with chasing economic or cultural interests isn’t the real balance, but rather a competing sub-balance with the other side of the seesaw: killing people. Lots of them. Often entirely innocent, and often not.

I believe I have a lot to learn.

I believe that nothing about all this—politics—is easy. Nothing about it is clean. People should be more humble. People should be quieter. People should listen more.

My background is quite a winding road as well.

My family's political affiliations are mixed. My Dad is a pretty much a Liberal 99% of the time - Liberal in the Canadian political party sense. He would have been 19 when Pierre Trudeau became Prime Minister and like many in his age group (particularly those of which saw themselves as being a member of the rock and roll counter culture generation as he somewhat did), Trudeau was a significant symbolic figure. But my dad was the 11th of 12 children and those who fall within the younger Trudeau generation are more Liberal while those in my family born earlier are more Conservative. My mom's side, I think we're typically very labour oriented and tended to vote NDP, which was the labour party (until this year's election, I'd argue).

As a kid I spent a lot of time with my dad's parents as well as an aunt, all of whom were Conservative. I also saw Michael J. Fox as a role model, first because of Back to the Future. But whenever I saw someone in one thing I wanted to see them in another, so I started watching Family Ties and, at six old or so, began to emulate the right-wing behaviours of Alex P. Keaton, not realizing the semi-satirical presentation of the character. Also inspired by Alex Keaton, I began to learn as much as I could about the American Presidents. Probably by grade one or so I could name all the Presidents in order up to Reagan (since he was President at the time). I think I was six when I dressed up as Abraham Lincoln for Halloween. Why nobody took me to see a doctor, I don't know!  :-D

Because of these formative years I essentially continued to claim to be a Conservative or a Republican up until my teen years. There was an element of rebellion in it since my dad was such a Liberal. Similarly, I would cheer for the Toronto Maple Leafs while my dad had been a die-hard Montreal Canadiens fans since a very young child (I'm happy to say that I've switched over to his side in that regard and have been a Habs fan for many years now). I remember being upset that Clinton beat Bush in the 1992 election - though I think that was possibly because I really liked Dana Carvey's impression of Bush on Saturday Night Live.

What began to change my feelings about politics was mostly getting engaged with issues. Despite all my fascination with politics and political figures I really ultimately knew very little about policies. And by the time I entered my early teenage years, I began to realize what my opinions were on issues and I realized that they were not echoed in the right-wing parties. Finally, it was a particularly terrible provincial government which made me realize that I was far from right wing - and this government emboldened my stance. Thanks to them and their awfulness, I became far more politically active.

By the time university began, I became part of an activist culture. I participated in strikes against rising tuition fees, for example. Then in my third year of university, when I was 21, 9/11 happened and this entirely politicized me. I became active in learning about economic policies, foreign policies, etc. Initially the model that I was following was the one that Michael Moore was laying out but quite quickly I became disenchanted with Liberal-Democratic arguments. I found them unconvincing and, I never became convinced that they represented a significant difference from the right-wing parties. What became increasingly apparent was that self-proclaimed Liberals were espousing right-wing policies.

That's when I discovered Noam Chomsky, who essentially forced me to re-examine all of my political assumptions and re-evalute how certain belief systems become entrenched. After Chomsky made me aware of systemic critique, I found any of the arguments that took place within the frame of that system (liberal vs. conservative, Democrat vs. Republican) to be largely trivial and  grossly ignorant. From that point on I engaged more with critics who looked into power structures and economic systems than those who dealt with hot button issues. I still think that some of the hot button issues are important, of course, but I also believe that we can only seriously engage with those issues once we take into account the power structures and economic systems that are creating them in the first place and, frequently, are determining our reactions to them.

So I'd say that at some point in my life I've been on many parts of the political spectrum.

Thanks, I really enjoyed that. And I'm glad to know I wasn't the only one inspired by Alex P. Keaton as a kid...

This WILL be politically incorrect for some, so if you find yourself so triggered by this, by all means, please ignore this post and continue onward with the noise in your own echo chamber. If you read to the end, be vary if you have chosen to be offended; I will have neither pity nor mercy for crocodile tears.

Well, what to say about one's political history? How does one make this into an interesting read?

I was born a privileged, white male into a Catholic, middle class, white, and suburban family whose money was stolen from "the real workers." Well, minus the liberal buzzwords, anyway. My parents, as baby boomers, were and are conservative - not OVERLY conservative, but they still take tradition, family, and religion very seriously. They're more apolitical than anything. Like most people in our neighborhood, they voted Republican, so when one is exposed to that a lot as a kid, it rubs off on you after a while.

When 9/11 happened, it changed a whole lot of my thought processes when it came to politics; in retrospect it was the beginning of my eventual evolution into who I am now -ideally an anarchist, realistically an anti-egalitarian libertarian. You all know the story - 9/11 happened and Americans wanted "every cave-dwelling sand n***** Mohametan" dead. "We" all knew it was a group of violent extremists from a violent religion that attacked us, but "we" felt that an entire group of people needed to be exterminated. I was the lone wolf. I opposed the "War on Terror" from day one because even at the tender age of seventeen there was little point to fighting a war on an ideology. I drifted away from conservativism at that time and became more moderate, even though I loathed Kerry in 2004, considering him to be little more than a Herman Munster lookalike who was about as honest as a Bombay salesman. This was the first inkling I received that the Democrats and Republicans were little more than jokes who agreed on more than they let on.

Fast forward to 2011 when I began reading Marx, Proudhon, and especially Noam Chomsky; I became a libertarian socialist. I was all about Occupy Wall Street, "we are the 99%," you name it. At the time it made a lot of sense to me. Of course, it confirmed all of my then-biases with regard to social justice, economics, you name it. When pressed to defend the ideology I simply couldn't. Not for lack of trying, of course...I just could not rationalize what the ideology really stood for without compromising. This realization coincided with a now-somewhat infamous video posted by Reason on YouTube when Peter Schiff went to Occupy Wall Street with a film crew and a sign that read "I am the 1%. Let's talk." I had always viewed capitalism with a distrustful eye, but the way Peter Schiff articulated it made so much sense to me that it was almost like an instant one hundred and eighty degree turn. I washed my hands of the authoritarian ideology that I thought would be absolute freedom and embrace capitalism and individual liberty as the only way to maximize freedom for the most people.

Fast forward to now, when we have feminism, Islamism,  and social justice degenerates being the order of the day in politics and I soon realized that the egalitarian anarcho-capitalism I had called my own was not going to cut it in the near future. I learned that we have very real problems. Under feminism, we have cuckolded, self-loathing beta "males" and power-hungry, self-loathing "females" who want to turn thousands of years of human nature on their head and take down Western civilization with it. We now have "males" who are so desperate to get any manner of p*ssy that they'll belittle themselves if they'll get to wet their whistles a bit - truly a gaggle of incompetent mental midgets. And we now have "females" who hate others nearly as much as they hate themselves that they'd rather subvert their role in society as mothers and nurturers (a role that has a PROVEN track record - centuries of human history doesn't lie) for the business world - a world in which they don't and never will belong for the most part. Under Islamism we have a violent bunch of inbred maniacs who are selling the most dangerous form of authoritarianism seen since Nazi Germany to a cuckolded Western civilization - a civilization so polluted by progressivism that they are welcoming this intrusion into our superior Western civilization in order to destroy our culture and values because of some sh*t that a few white men did centuries ago that turned Africa and the Middle East (clearly jewels of civilization and social justice) into something a bit more than uncivilized wastelands. I know; white people are so horrible. Under the spectre of social justice we in Western civilization are under assault by moral, sexual, and cultural degenerates who want to claim that "gender doesn't exist," that everything triggers them, that LGBT individuals are "the same as everyone else" when for the most part they are people who are so afraid of their own shadows that they desire the validation from the evil heteros they hate so much so they might sleep a bit more soundly at night (and damn anyone who dares speak out against their rather authoritarian mafioso tendencies), and, best of all, that "we're all equal." No, "we're" not. Individuals are not equal to other individuals. You want to live in Western civilization? You'll learn the language, the culture, and our ways...and you'll like it or be forced to leave. I don't see that as particularly authoritarian; I see that as simply telling the rest of the world to love Western civilization or LEAVE IT.

At the end of the day I'm just one guy with a lot of opinions. Some are stinkier than others. I neither hate nor wish ill will upon anyone. One of the biggest parts of my political evolution was my rediscovery of religion - specifically Wicca, which has become a guiding force in my life and has had untold influence on me as a person and how I live my life. Still, it hasn't stopped even my extremely conservative uncle from opining that he's nowhere near as conservative as I.

Thank you for posting that.

I have a suspicion that I partly inspired this section.

I wouldn't give yourself too much credit for that...:)

(https://www.politicalcompass.org/chart?ec=-5.5&soc=-4.92)
Apparently, this is me. Right in the middle of the third quadrant.

I don't want to start a new thread for this because I don't think there is enough conversation that will stem from it to warrant that (though who knows?), but I wanted to say something about this. So consider it an appendix to my primary entry above.

First, if anyone is more educated about the details of securities regulations than I am (which would not be hard to be), I hope you will contribute more context. I'm not more than a minimal investor, and I'm not in the financial services industry. The company for which I do marketing does things in those areas, or for those firms, but I don't pretend to be informed on any real level about the details.

POINT BEING: today, the SEC adopted rules to push ahead with the JOBS Act (I hate legislation acronyms!), fully the Jump-start Our Business Startups Act. (I threw up a little even typing that.) The point is, it is a way for smaller businesses to raise funds from people who become equity shareholders. A step above Kickstarter campaigns, but below traditional publicly held companies with IPOs.

I don't hate the idea at all. I love it, actually. I wholly acknowledge that the bureaucracy involved in being a public company is absurd and keeps smaller companies from having a chance to participate. (I also believe in some level of regulation, so it's not an all or nothing situation for me.) Here is what I hate:

"The amount of money backers will be allowed to invest depends on their income. Those with an annual income or net worth of less than $100,000 will be allowed to invest up to $2,000 in a 12-month period, or 5 percent of the lesser of their income or net worth, whichever is greater. Those with an income and net worth of more than $100,000 will be permitted to invest up to 10 percent of the lesser of their annual income or net worth." http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/31/business/dealbook/sec-gives-small-investors-access-to-equity-crowdfunding.html?ref=business&_r=0

While I agree that a person probably ought not invest his full fortune in some company (startup or not), I also wholly disagree that the government should step in and prevent you from doing so. As I said in my main post, I believe in striving to equalize opportunities for people, but I do not believe in holding their hands at every step through life. I believe people have the right to make terrible decisions. Yes, I also believe in a(n unpleasantly minimal) safety net for those who self-destruct, who fail. But telling someone what s/he can spend on something seems entirely inappropriate to me. After all, I can withdraw all my retirement funds or other investments and bank accounts and spend that money in cash on whatever I want: Triscuits, Taco Bell, used copies of Billy Joel's Greatest Hits I & II. I can turn it over to a relative or a cult or a church. If I want to stupidly invest it all in a terrible business idea, such is life. I don't think the government should prevent me from doing so.

This strikes me as the kind of overreaching regulation that conservatives, libertarians, and Republians are correct to condemn.

Of course, the question then becomes...if I can't decide how much of my money I can spend on something then it is not my money. If it is not my money then whose is it?

Oh, I completely agree.

For me, regulations make sense with respect to disclosures on the part of companies. Ensuring that finances, that plans, etc., are honestly disclosed so that companies are painting a true picture of their situations and people make informed decisions. But if the individuals' "informed decisions" are stupid, well ... it's often said that you can't legislate morality. Neither can you legislate stupidity.

It's all part of the anti-business atmosphere that has flourished in this country since Obama's presidency began. Entrepreneurs are vilified as traitors, businesses are vilified as exploitative, and so on. Never mind the fact that entrepreneurship built the United States for the most part as a cultural and technological behemoth.

I just don't see why or how regulating the private sector will fix our broken economy. The economy crashed BECAUSE of state regulations on the private sector, not in spite of it. It was the same thing in 1929 as well. State meddling in the private sector DOES. NOT. BLOODY. WORK. Sure, some will respond with feels-based platitudes about "the greater good" and "for the benefit of society." I immediately respond with this - "the greater good" gave us the Great Depression. Instead of letting the economy correct itself, the state exacerbated a serious problem and made it worse. Regulating the private sector won't "create" jobs. It will destroy jobs.

I don't think I agree with that, but I'm going to take a break. Mostly to watch basketball. I'll think about it and either respond or shut up.

Don't have much time here except to cut and paste but I hope that suffices for now.

The economic and technological behemoth of the US is less a consequence of entrepreneurship than it is the result of an ongoing and powerful public sector who have largely subsidized the major economic and technological achievements in American history. The history of America’s economy, in fact, is essentially a long story which illustrates the success of a public system, as is the case of just about every other successful economy since the Industrial period began. The U.S. economy from the beginning was stabilized by a variety of protectionist policies (trade tariffs, subsidies, etc.) enacted by Alexander Hamilton. In the 19th century, the U.S. Army, typically under the pretext of defense, took on the lion's share of managing the more complex industrial systems, one of which was the railroad, for example. This crucial intervention of the state into technological and industrial development in the 19th century was what, in effect, prepped and allowed for some of the major achievements of the early 20th century, like the automotive industry which itself relied heavily on years of publicly subsidized research and development. After WWII this system of state intervention was ramped up even further and what resulted was one of the most powerful periods of economic growth but it was very much a state sponsored growth: computers, electronics, telecommunication, aviation, all of these came under the domain of the State at one point of another - again, during the crucial risk period. The economic boom of the 90s was essentially the result of products such as the Internet, satallites, transistors, etc. which came directly out of the public sector. The private sector didn't want to touch the internet until it had passed the crucial risk period – namely after nearly 30 years of publicly funded Pentagon research and development. Bill Gates, for example, was publicly shunning the validity of the internet until a year before it was privatized. It was only when he realized that it could be profitable that he decided to take it over. And this is generally how the economy works in successful industrialized countries. It is understood in the private industry that the public should subsidize the risk and, therefore, provide a cushy welfare net for corporations who don't have to worry about making bad investments. Once the product has sufficiently passed the test that it can actually turn a profit, it is then placed into private hands. This is true of the major advancements in US economic history. The public pays for the development of the product and is then prohibited from sharing in the profits for that which wouldn't have existed without their crucial support.

Likewise I think the facts suggest otherwise in regards to why to economy crashed. Just about every serious study I've seen on the matter generally accepts as a given the conclusions of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission which cited “Widespread failures in financial regulation” as a leading factor in the crisis. And the reason why these conclusions are accepted is because it is the most rational conclusion one can reach. Remember that it was understood that a central factor behind the crash of 1929 was precisely the banks making too many high risk loans for securities speculation or as one bank President stated, "reaping the natural fruit of the orgy of speculation in which millions of people have indulged." The crash followed what was considered to be a "speculative boom" in which more than 8.5 billion was out on loan.

It was understood immediately that regulations were needed to distinguish commercial banks from investment banks and prevent banks from turning into hedge funds – hence the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 and others in the same period. These regulations in fact worked and it is interesting to note what happened once neo-liberal policies came into effect which saw the general dismantling of these regulations. The US government had been deregulating the financial institutions on a wide scale in the 1970s, including the Garn–St. Germain Depository Institutions Act which led directly to the Savings and Loan crisis in the late 80s. When the Clinton Administration repealed Glass-Steagall in the 90s he did so knowing full well of its effect in preventing major crises post-crash of 29 but they added some caveat about how these were different times and the economy was different now than it was then, or some sort of lip-service on behalf of the nation’s elite. What happened of course was perfectly predictable as the system very quickly reverted back to a pre-1929 status with the creation of yet another speculative boom. And, of course, the consequences of all this was perfectly predictable. These regulations which separated commercial and investment banks and placed limitations on interest rates and loans by banks would have outright prevented financial institutions from using off-balance sheet securitization and derivatives and creating shadow banking systems to mask the excessive risks being taken with mortgage lending which is precisely what caused the crisis.

I was born into a politically mixed family, but was, and still am, much more connected emotionally and socially to the liberals. So, as a kid, I heard both sides, but was more empathetic to the liberal view. As I’ve grown, my experiences have solidified much of that, but I really consider myself more “left” than either “liberal” or “progressive”. My positions are more based on economic policy than social policy, though of course those overlap politically.
I’m a US citizen, so I have very limited choices when voting.  I always end up voting Democratic because their domestic policy positions are always closer to mine than the Republicans’ but still pretty far off. The two parties have equally dreadful foreign policies.

excellent summation. One should also not exclude the often underestimated role the establishment of land-grant universities had in the growth of US corporate dominance. The eventual technological advances that fell in the laps of US corporations arising from this federal plan were a boon. It fits nicely with American mythology to credit technological advances to entrepreneurship but it is rarely so. Technology almost always is born out of federally-funded effort.

Cronyists agree that profits should be privatized and losses should be socialized. Socialists, like all good aristocrats, agree with this notion. Government incentivized poor financial decisions made by private banks. Socialists, in their desire for an all-powerful authoritarian fascist stalag state would pass the buck and blame the greedy capitalists for what was always a failure of government. That's their modus operandi; their raison d'État. And for those of us who still think there's a difference between socialism and fascism - let's not kid ourselves, guys. I'd like to think you're all more informed than that underneath all the Che Guevara posters and semen-stained Noam Chomsky books from which you've claimed to glean such selfless omnipotence. The "private property" in fascism is about as real as Planned Parenthood not performing abortions with federal money - it is a completely hallucinated notion; a fiction dreamed up by sociopaths to woo the more sheepish of individuals into unwavering and unquestioning support. I mean, hey...what better way to bribe the public than with their own money? And yes, it is THEIR money.

https://reason.com/archives/2012/10/14/clintons-legacy-the-financial-and-housin

Well then I guess socialists will have to come up with a new word for their beliefs because your private definition of "socialism" differs from theirs. I'm sure they will try their best to accommodate you in your redefinition of a long-standing term.

No, a socialist would not agree with this notion since they would not think that profits "should be privatized."


Sure, you could say they "incentivized" the private banks by de-regulating the financial institutions as stridently as they did, but that's because in the United States government policy is largely made by the financial institutions.


I was unaware that the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission was made up of socialists.


I don't know who exactly are the "sociopaths" who wish "to woo the more sheepish of individuals into unwavering and unquestioning support." But I do indeed know that the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac mythology was largely spearheaded by the American Enterprise Institute senior fellow Peter Wallison who clearly had a vested interest in disagreeing with the findings of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission. And study after study continues to undermine Wallison's position, incidentally, though it does continue to be upheld in journals like that one that you link to, whose only evidence is a link to another article written several years before the actual investigation into the crisis took place - years before serious studies concluded that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had little to do with the crisis and that the actual problem had to do with the de-regulation of the financial institutions. In all fairness to Wayne Barrett who wrote the 2008 article that your article links to, he was simply not in a position to know the reality - no actual study had been done. However, the fact that Sheldon Richman links to a four year old article after far more intensive and conclusive studies were formed is extremely disingenuous. -- EDIT: I've since seen another article from reason.com that attempts to blame the financial crisis in Fannie and Freddie, and once again, their links are to articles written before the extensive FCIC study was published. This is akin to somebody writing an article that attempts to debunk evolution and only cites articles written before Darwin to prove its point. If you are going to debunk a commonly held belief, you have to actually engage with it rather than reiterate the points that were made before the actual major study on the issue was done. -- That being said, it's just an online zine and there's no reason to expect it to follow any standards. But if anyone can point me to an actual serious study which affirms a point made by one dissenter amongst a panel of experts, please do so. But pointing to an article written several years before the study he was dissenting from isn't going to help.

Emily, CSM, or other interested viewers whose views are left of TRBB (since his are clear on this), what do you think about the specific aspect of the new SEC rules I quoted? Should investors be protected from themselves with income-based limits on what they can invest?

I don't think they are being protected from themselves, to be honest. I think they are being protected from having to subsidize the potential catastrophes of a market system that is inherently unstable. Furthermore, scholars have suggested that the bill will significantly ramp up fraud. Now investors might be being protected from themselves if there was transparency on what this bill actually does. Instead they are being told that the bill is great because it will help small startups, etc., and are not being made sufficiently aware of the dangers at work. Personally, from what I have read (and I'm no expert), the JOBS Act seems terrible and extremely dangerous. I'm glad that there are some safeguards in place -- maybe these regulations have worked to overcome the concerns made by just about every labour advocate that the bill works to undo the transparency regulations put in place after Enron and increase investor risk in the same vein as the 2008 crash -- but personally I think the whole bill should probably be vetoed.

Paragraph one...last few sentences. Excellent analysis of the taxpayer subsidized R & D of the Internet.  Bravo on that.  ;)

Thanks, though credit definitely goes to Chomsky on that.

Yay! I now know how to add an image!
(http://s1.postimg.org/6s4ditbgf/chart.png)

Mine is pretty close to Bubbly Waves', -4.75 economically, -6.05 socially. But I'd add the caveat that I don't take this kind of thing serious, as it doesn't really let you respond with any kind of nuance.

I agree that it's not very serious, but I was also surprised to see that mine seems fairly accurate.
Honestly, I don’t think the primary motive is to protect small investors, though that’s an aspect. I think the primary motive is to inhibit large investments and big investors from skirting the SEC and other oversight mechanisms.
Actually, this mechanism would be very costly for a company to use. The bill involves a lot of red tape. I consider the red tape a good thing, because it will eliminate a number of scammers, but it will also inhibit exactly the sort of business you’re thinking of from using it.
Is the government looking for a strong economy, or is it looking to teach people object lessons, or is it looking to just leave people and the economy to do as they will with no interference regardless of the outcome?
Some people think the government should do the last of these things. This is philosophically sound, but leads to a lot of poverty, which I think sucks.
Few people philosophically think that the second should be the goal of the government, but they get distracted on individual issues into: “well, if those people did something stupid, they should pay for it or learn from it or whatever” which is reasonable but shouldn’t really be the focus of government.
If people want the government to support a strong economy that is not hugely divided into have and have-nots, it’s important for the government to keep people from dumping their money into non-productive activities. People are subject to mass-stupidity. See Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds. The internet is especially good at herding mass-stupidity. See the tech bubble of the 1990s and the housing bubble of the 2000s. We are getting better and better, with popular communication getting easier and easier, at creating stupidity bubbles.
Most businesses that end up using this mechanism, due to extraordinary costs, will be businesses that can’t find investment through the existing mechanisms, which are much cheaper. So they will be mostly fly-by-night businesses that usual investors, including angels, venture capitalists and high-risk, high return investors, reject. A few people with ideas that seem outlandish but for whatever reason catch on (pet rock) may succeed but for the most part the people who invest through this mechanism will be losing their money at a much higher rate than current small-investment losses and the winners will be people who are really good at fleecing the uneducated.
Should people suffer for being fools? Perhaps. But is it good for the economy to shift money from fools to scammers and flaky dreamers? Not really because then investment and spending is skewed toward the non-productive. It's best for investment money to be skewed toward production and innovation and for all the population, fools and non-fools, to have enough of it to buy those nice, innovative products, cycling the money back to production and innovation. If the fools are poor and the scammers are rich, then less money will be spent on basic products like food and non-luxury furniture and clothing and innovation that we all can use, driving up the cost of those products and innovations and making it harder for the non-fools but non-rich to afford them. Meanwhile, the scammers will be putting their extra money into luxury products. The sum effect being that there are more yachts in the world for the few people who can afford them but less affordable basic goods for everyone else. This is an over-simplification, but it is the effect of increased income disparities. The rich get more stuff and the non-rich get more expensive stuff.
One benefit is that is that it’s a tiny step toward modernizing the investment marketplace which is still stuck in the 19th century, though the wrong tiny step.

‍

Here's mine:

(https://scontent-lax3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/v/t34.0-12/12083985_1105421102828971_1848207787_n.jpg?oh=5d631ff615a9deb3a05c63c831d6b194&oe=563770F1)

No, I don't think someone should be able to tell you what you can do with your money.
However, if CSM is correct and well-informed (as he often is), then perhaps it's a good thing that someone is preventing people from investing too heavily.



No, I wouldn't place too much stock in it, either. I just like looking at these things to get a better understanding of myself and my views (sort of like that MBTI thread.)
I am apparently closest to Pyotr Kropotkin, noted anarcho-communist. (http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/images/smilies/shrug.gif)

Just started reading some of these posts -- such a great thread topic!  Long overdue.  Kudos, Captain!

(http://ulster.happeningmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/readers-choice-logo.jpg)

I am a conservative (Goldwater style, in favor of liberty--not a Christian) now mainly because of the monotonous, intolerant religious left, which hates free speech and diversity. I live in academia, which is a snarky, droning, leftist mono-culture. The NPR crowd, slobbering, gilt-ridden, trust-funded, elite, never worked a day in their lives, so moralistic and self-congratulatory.

 

I respect my bros and sis's here for your Liberal views, and I try to be open and observant for good ideas.  But if any of you, even you libs, lived in the Professor's world, you would move to the right in favor of free speech real quick.

I'm all for free speech. However, just because you can say things doesn't mean you should.

Dad was a professor, two siblings professors. I'm all for free speech of course. And very happily left as are/were 2/3 of the afore-mentioned professors. Supporting free speech is, by definition, a liberal position and neither right nor left.

Indeed: please tell that to the Cornell U professor who argues against intellectual diversity and in favor or of homogenous Democratic-party faculty.

Sure. Sounds like a real crank. Give me his/her contact info.

Thank you. I hope you'll share your stories as well.

With respect to everyone, I hope you'll all share stories, ask follow-ups, but refrain from debate in this thread. I'm a huge fan of debate, but let's separate. I'd love to see this thread be just about getting information, context.

Exactly!  ;)

That's a challenge! I'll do my best.